Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 February	26 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Murphy[edit]

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

Not notable. Only album is not on and important label. Has worked with some notable artists but notability is not inherited from them. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Is a little local interest coverage in Eastern Daily Press (18 December 2010, 412 words) and a few very short reviews for his album seen here but there is nothing that significant. Being a curator of a small museum is not inherently notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's not enough coverage to push it over the notability bar for me. One of the references listed provides a link to clippings for album reviews, but these are either capsule reviews or the site may not meet our reliable source requirement. Here is the Eastern Daily press coverage. I also tracked down the Daily Mirror review which can be seen to be a very small capsule review. -- Whpq (talk) 21:58, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Australia Music and Movie Awards[edit]

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

Non notable awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Would've supported keep if its organizers had articles. Delibzr (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You'd figure an "Afro-Australian" something-or-other would be at least notable in Australia, but the best I could find on the first three pages of Google returns was a single passing-mention in an event calender. The location of the award ceremony itself Googlemaps locates to a theater in a quiet neighborhood ten miles from downtown Sydney (not exactly bringing to mind the idea of celebrities pouring out of limousines onto red carpets while hundreds of flash-bulbs snap). Article, recently created, appears to exist to support the dubious notability claims of other embattled bios, such as A.T.M JEFF. Pax 08:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking significant third party coverage. Pax makes excellent arguments too. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 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 delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.T.M JEFF[edit]

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

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

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

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

Still not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has lots of sources but none are independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. Some do not even verify the claims made. Awards are not major. No releases on important label. No charting or gold. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing some solid references for this article by SBS Australia and other website, and the Awards that he won i see some Australia and America stars were nominated too. For example the Australian artist Timomatic and Vivica Fox those are big stars so i think we should keep it.--Frankjohnson1960 (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Frankjohnson1960 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - Because i'm an old man and i see the artist has won some awards with stars that are known and also if you check on his Facebook fan page, he has over 30,000 fans. He seems to be a star too just from my point of view.--Yudes (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Yudes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I admit that initially I was a bit skeptical, but it looks like he's notable for his time on BBA and for his music career. He's received a Afro Australian Music Award, which seems to be relatively major in that country. I'm not entirely happy with the sourcing, but there seems to be just enough to where he'd squeak by notability guidelines. I even saw a solid reference where he had an interview with the SBS swahili so he must be big in his home town. Even if you check his Facebook page has over 36,000 fans and his also verified on his page--Burundi78 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Burundi78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - can't find evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Awards received are nowhere near "relatively major". Call me cynical, but some of the previous votes seem a little suspicious. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't see the reason why this article would be deleted. I have been a wikipedia member for fews years and i have seen lot worse articles than this that have no references or have 2 to 3 references and are still there. But i found this article has good references and also the artist has won some awards where some known celebrities where nominated.--Doctorwilliam1973 (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Doctorwilliam1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as it stands - perhaps the single-issue editors could add solid referencing to the article and improve it to be worth keeping - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i see people complaining saying delete and other keep, but lets be honest i see nothing wrong with this article it has good references and the artist seems to be big and has won some awards. Even tho people are saying the Awards he won was independent awards, i don't see how it's independent while the actress Vivica Fox who's Hollywood actress were nominated too. I have searched for the artist called Tim Omaji who were nominated too and seems to be huge star in they home country. The awards looks like they were major in they home country, i think this article deserve to be kept.--Julias ws (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Julias ws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This article was deleted per the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.T.M JEFF It was then recreated yet again by User:Etiennebaheza (same name as subject) and speedy-deleted as a recreation; if deleted this time around, it should probably be WP:SALTed as spam - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well sourced and notable. Thanks.--Diomadi (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) — Diomadi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt the freaking earth: Y'know, I've never seen an AfD with a flood of sock/meatpuppets voting Keep where the subject was notable--- it's almost a solid enough indicator of non-notability to form a deletion rationale in of itself. But in the wave of blogs, obscure webpages, press releases, WP:ROUTINE coverage and non-notable awards, there's just one little thing missing in the article: substantial coverage of the subject in multiple, published, reliable sources. You'd think, for one, that an artist based out of Perth who was remotely notable would've been featured in The West Australian, which is Perth's daily newspaper. He's not. [1] Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow! i see my account has been added in list of investigations? Just for voting this article turns my account into danger zone, well that's ridiculous............. Mz7 whatever you call yourself, you're one of those people who makes other people feel down and bad or want to kill themselves. Anyways this is not my problem to keep it or delete it, you people can decide what to do. All i was trying to do was just voting because there is some people here on wikipedia who are just here to hate on people's article. Once they don't like the article they just nominate it for deletion for no reason. I have a friend who had an good article here on wikipedia and it got deleted for no reason while it had everything it takes to be here. So every time i see an article that has been nominated for deletion and i think is good article, i vote for it. As i mention before that there is some wikipedia users that are here just to nominate articles that they don't like, even though the article has good references once they don't like it they will nominate it for deletion. By the way it's administrator's choice to keep the article or delete. --Yudes (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The article was nominated for deletion FOR reasons. They're right at the top of the page, and you might have read it instead of spending all that time creating sockpuppets. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see people making an argument on this article that i have created saying that the artist is independent artist? well for y'all information this artist is not independent, he was signed with Sony BMG back in 2006. Since in 2010 he has been signed with DME Entertainment. I have no idea why you guys are saying that his an independent artist, i have been busy to sit down and put down everything about his past label sony BMG and how he got signed with it. But since you guys are complaining about this article saying that his an independent, i'll try to finish writing it very soon. --AAO2015 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: There is an ongoing SPI surrounding this AfD. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. in my several years experience in WP, the swarming of desperate single purpose editors is a clear indicator that the subject is not notable. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT per Nha Trang and LibStar. Pax 08:29, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi West[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO, two nominees are not enough. In my WP:BEFORE I just found a number of false positives, but nothing of substance. Deprodded with the rationale that she passes GNG and PORNBIO as a producer, but I couldn't find any evidence of that. Cavarrone 22:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made this go to AfD and I moved it into mainspace (I didn't however write any of the article). I'm not sure how you couldn't find any evidence (how?!) - it's pretty clear even on the official website who's the owner [www.forbiddenfruitsfilms.com] since Jodi is plastered all over it and the main menu points a link to her personal site too. Also they must have a good amount of films since a quick search for their DVD's results in hundreds of results [2]. This took me about a minute to find, my point being this isn't some really obscure studio. I'm not sure why all those references are not suitable either, a quick google result resulted in 21 000 000 results, all of the links on the first couple of pages relating to her Abcmaxx (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by reliable sources independent of the subject. Sites affiliated with the subject don't count. A raw number of Google hits does not establish notability. That goes double for pornography where flooding is common. Finally, the only citation to significant coverage (an AVN article) appears to be a regurgitated press release. AVN is notorious for this. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Adult Film Database, Adult Film Database, Internet Movie Database and AVN (magazine) are all independent reliable sources surely? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Databases like IMDb and IAFD do not establish notability. IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical information. IAFD lacks biographical depth. Porn trade press like Adult Video News must be treated with caution. If the articles are not reprinted press releases (like the one cited in the article), they tend to promote the industry. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without award wins. Fails WP:GNG without nontrivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. All I could find was a single article at Adult Video News. Even that article may be questionable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More sources I'm not sure if I'm missing something but I found 3 articles/interviews from independent sources very easily. XCritic [3] Adult DVD talk [4], Xbiz [5] and Fleshbot [6]. All three websites look legit, and granted they're all publications that are online and related to the subject, but there aren't going to be many articles in a main newspaper now are they, especially as most sites are just tube sites which will want to point you straight to the video content. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found even more. Hotmovies.co.uk [7], womeninadult.co.uk [8], Interview with headlines.xxx [9], arentwenaughtyxxx.com [10]... "I couldn't find anything" argument is very weak one Abcmaxx (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid that Abcmaxx hasn't identified any reliable sources for notability. The only one close is Xbiz and this seems to have a fake byline and is, in any event, and interview and therefore primary not secondary. I wouldn't like to hang a BLP on such a weak source and the subject fails GNG/PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale and per Gene93k's sound and accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. Pax 07:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject meets neither the WP:GNG nor the low-hanging fruit that is WP:PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kithe Brewster[edit]

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

Dodgy sourced BLP... Advertising and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irredeemably promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article that fails WP:GNG. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional tone, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:54, 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 redirect to Roy (film). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramjit Singh[edit]

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

Unotable film director with just one film so far. Now maybe someday-but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with history to Roy (film). His debut film is most certainly notable, but so far that's his main claim to fame. Once he releases more films and/or gains more coverage for himself (most of the coverage out there is for the movie), we can always un-redirect the article and build it up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect, I agree with the above. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:36, 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 deleted as A10 speedy by ThaddeusB (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Y. Srihari). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr sreeharii[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. An article on the same person, with a different spelling, is already being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. Srihari. ubiquity (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normal pediatric labs values[edit]

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

Article provides only an explanation of what the term for medical baselines scores are for a specific age range. No indicaiton of notability. Amortias (T)(C) 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:02, 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. Article's subject is found to not be currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonomentRecords[edit]

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

Too soon. Just started this month for this company. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources found; as nom notes, company is brand new. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, company does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time. Nakon 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero news and book hits, can't find anything on the company, just seems to be far too soon for an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 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 redirect to Killing Joke discography. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wilful Days[edit]

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

I have searched and, outside of an AllMusic review, there isn't much to establish this has Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killing Joke discography - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 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 all, Nakon 03:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[edit]

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

I recently nominated foreign relations of French Guiana for deletion on the basis that French Guiana has no foreign relations, since it is an integral part of France. Someone suggested that I nominate other articles of this type for deletion, and so I looked around and found that another one of them, for the Falkland Islands, was deleted in 2008, but several others still exist, which I am nominating for deletion:

Foreign relations of Aruba - Has no foreign relations, they are managed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Foreign relations of the Netherlands Antilles - Ditto, plus the Netherland Antilles no longer exist
Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands - Uninhabited

As far as I can tell, all the other foreign relations articles for dependent territories linked to in the foreign relations navigation templates are redirects (for example, foreign relations of Gibraltar redirects to disputed status of Gibraltar, and foreign relations of Åland to foreign relations of Finland), except in a few cases where the existence of these articles is justified, namely for Hong Kong, Macau, Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. Unlike those, which are well-developed articles with lots of sources, the three I'm nominating are nearly empty, and there is no reason for them to exist. Territorial disputes do not justify the existence of an international relations page; if they did, there would need to be a foreign relations of Jammu and Kashmir. Liam987 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Netherlands Antilles article (which all but says the territory had no international relations) and especially the South Georgia one (the idea of an uninhabited territory having international relations is ludicrous). Neutral on Aruba: although it is still part of the Netherlands, it apparently does have some measure of international autonomy, and is an associate member (but not a full member) of the Association of Caribbean States on its own merits, separate from the similar status of its parent country (which represents several of the other Dutch holdings in the Caribbean for the organization). Of course, the current article doesn't even get that right, so an argument for blowing the whole mess up is also plausible. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says at Association of Caribbean States (which could be wrong; not going to bother to look on their website right now) that the Netherlands and France are associate members "on behalf of" their dependencies. Liam987 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ACS treats the Netherlands as an associate member "on behalf of" Bonaire, Saba, and Saint Eustatius, and France similarly regarding French Guiana, Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin. However, the ACS considers several other territories, including Aruba to be Associate Members in their own right, and lists Aruba as one of the signatories of its establishing convention. Similarly, the ACS's entry for Aruba lists the local Prime Minister as head of state. I'm pretty agnostic about whether that's sufficient for retention, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Jesus Christ, do I loathe these inane articles that exist just because someone thinks that every rock, atoll and patch of dirt ought to have a "Foreign Relations of ..." article. Sorta like the "Scouting in the Vatican City" article, concerning a country that doesn't have any Scout-age citizens, never has since the Boy Scouts were founded, and never will. Honestly, I think this is a WP:BULLSHIT deal if anything. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete all none of these are sovereign countries, their foreign relations are controlled by their "parent" country. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the foreign relations of SGSSI per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign relations of the Falkland Islands. They have the same situation as the Falklands, but there is an even stronger case for their deletion due to the fact that they are uninhabited. The other two are more complicated. I'd like to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Antilles – United States relations, due to the fact that both of them still have ___-US relations articles. If both of these are deleted, then the United States' relations articles should probably be renominated. Tavix | Talk 19:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba articles. They have autonomy regarding lots of of items and do(did) discuss on a 1:1 basis with the US. A thing they can't is formally conclude treaties, although they do negotiate about those items under their control (tax policy, air traffic, entry into the country, but ironically not visa policy). The article could do a lot more than it does at the moment in explaining that... L.tak (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: While there seems to be clear consensus to delete Foreign relations of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, there appears to be no consensus yet on Foreign relations of Aruba and Foreign relations of the Netherlands Antilles. I am relisting in the hope that a clearer consensus may be achieved on all three.--MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete all The only one that has even the slightest reason for being is the Aruba article, and really, there's no need for a separate article just to hold a couple of sentences which would live perfectly well in the main article's politics section. Seyasirt (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for the Neth. Antilles. The territories in question have little autonomy except issuing postage stamps, but I've been to the Dutch colonial Caribbean, and they have quite a bit of autonomy. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all, including those a few other editors want to keep. Is there *any* useful information in *any* of these? (If so, why not put it -- all one sentence that it might be -- somewhere people will actually find it?) <waves pom-poms at Nha Trang; you go, girl-or-guy!> Pax 08:47, 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 delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Krackle[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable band with little relevance. It also appears that this page is a self promotion effort.There are very few actual references other than youtube, twitter, and other completely self-published items. The only possibly reliable page was a wired article that no longer exists. Jcmcc450 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:06, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Blacknell[edit]

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

The section headings and search sections were missing previously. Added now. Natg 19 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything to establish that this character is notable. Article appears to be the work of a paid editor: other edits include articles on both albums by this man, both of which I have changed to redirects.TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the character is notable because he has made a Documentary movie "woke Up Alive" which is in IMDB and is the Winner of the 2010 Treasure Coast Film Festival for Best Documentary. It has also been nominated for other film fests. And has been invited to Monterey UN Film Festival for 2015. Besides that, the character is RverbNation contest winner for his music and a professional musician. I think there is a way to improve the article rather than deleting it. Lord Subro — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film might be notable (although I doubt it): that does not him notable. On the strength of hps music 'career;, he has not made a ripple. There are no reliable sourcesto use to expand the article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well the documentary has received awards and got recognition and invitation from UN film fests which makes the movie undoubtedly notable. And in the movie you can see the investment of time and money the character has put into it. (which makes him notable as well). And in musical life Blacknell is starting and is being recognised by more and more big companies like MTV as well. http://www.mtv.com/artists/mark-blacknell/ And he is in Pandora as well. Lord Subro — Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. See WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:TOOSOON.TheLongTone (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria and both main bands are redlinked. Nakon 03:06, 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 no consensus. Nakon 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh National Film Award for Best Director[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th Bangladesh National Film Awards Wgolf (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen. What part of the nomination there ("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") applies here? Thincat (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it were referenced, this would be a reasonable WP:SPINOFF from National Film Awards (Bangladesh) as that article would become too large if the lists from each award were merged there. This split article approach is common for film awards. See, e.g. Academy Award for Best Director and BAFTA Award for Best Direction. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a valid WP:SPINOFF. This is the most prestigious award in Bangladesh for film directors. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:47, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aerin Ross[edit]

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

Too soon. Her first movie wont be out till May, while I can't find much info about her on TV at all. Now I do think she does look to be someone that will need a page someday though. Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Looking up her roles-in San Andres-playing a tsunami survivor. Yes a nameless character. Defiantly too soon. I did find that she also goes under Shanee Wilson, still no luck though. Wgolf (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion of this page will be necessary because it does not violate or conflict with any existing Wiki terms. AS a matter of fact, if your OPINION is that it should not be a page then I think its great that you are exercising your first amendment right to express yourself. However, this is a page for a working actress that has had verifiable roles on television and in Film. If it is not too soon for the film to have its own page then it is not too soon for her to have her own page. Additionally, IMDB recognizes her accomplishments so why should this forum be any better? Please tell me that you are not implying that a hardworking and and talented individual (probably no different than yourself) is not "good enough" to have a page because you dont like the idea...that's small minded...please be better than that. lets ALL be better than that. Thank you for your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B58:AD00:E9F8:D6AA:4D15:207A (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of any significant named parts, including the upcoming film. Please, dont assume we are cads for proposing deletion. This is nothing personal against Aerin. free speech does NOT apply here. She has the free speech right to promote herself without government interference, but we have no obligation to host articles that dont show notability. This is not a soapbox at Hyde Park.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Roxxx[edit]

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

Since the last discussion standards for blps have hardened considerably and PORNBIO significantly tightened. She fails PORNBIO and the Gng so we should no longer retain this blp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails the updated version of WP:PORNBIO. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the current WP:PORNBIO guideline without award wins. Even counting the porn trade press as reliable, I'm not finding significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The subject gets mainly passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails PORNBIO. Negligible reliable independently sourced biographical content, therefore fails GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No award wins and no multiple appearances in notable mainstream media. Pax 08:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:PORNBIO. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO, has not won a well-known and significant industry award and no significant coverage. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails WP:PORNBIO, –Davey2010^Talk 03:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the nominator of AfD #2, I am overjoyed to see this article held to the new standards and failing miserably. No awards, no coverage in reliable sources == fail. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maine pile up[edit]

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

Non notable event per WP:NOTNEWS Mo ainm~Talk 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not WP:GNG notable for a separate article (possibly not yet - this is very recent) and does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion at List of road accidents (2010–present) so redirecting is not a good option. Although we do have some articles on car crashes (see Category:Road accidents) there is an apparent consensus not to have pages on non-fatal collisions, unless they are notable for some other reason. For example, 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash was fatal, Alexian Lien beating was unusual and has national attention, 2014 Khairpur bus crash killed 56, and so on. If this was a crash resulting from winter weather in, say, Arizona, then it would probably be notable, but somewhere like Maine it just isn't. If this were to be kept, it should be moved to a better title, perhaps 2015 Maine Interstate 95 crash. Ivanvector (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete a severe case of WP:NOTNEWS. Seyasirt (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. –Davey2010^Talk 03:41, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ktyskrz[edit]

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

A DJ/remixer with no notability that can be found. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability standards. Nakon 03:08, 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. Nakon 03:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charanpreet Singh[edit]

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

I put a prod on this but the creator removed it-it seems that this is a unotable actor as well as a possible autobio. Wgolf (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any evidence of notability at all so per nom Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 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 snow delete. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory grantmaking[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism for which there is insufficient independently-published sourcing to satisfy the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This has been the subject of a thread at Wikipediocracy involving a convoluted connection between a paid consulting firm, WMF, WMF employees creating content relating to the consulting firm's concept, and the consulting firm lauding WMF for its leadership in the concept being created. I don't believe that the concept being touted is more than a non-notable neologism and would like the community's input as to whether this piece should stand under GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some decent references can be provided very quickly. I can see absolutely nothing in the article to suggest this isn't just buzzword used by one organisation for the concept the rest of the world knows as "service user involvement", and if I weren't AGFing I'd say it looks suspiciously like a PR firm trying to create a non-existent field in which their client just happens to be the self-proclaimed expert. It's just about possible that a viable article could be made on SUI, although I'd be sceptical that it needs anything more than a sentence in Grant (money), but Wikipedia doesn't need an article on a little-used term that appears only to be used by one firm, and certainly doesn't need an article with a reference section as dubious-looking as this one. – iridescent 17:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE STRONG delete. The conflict of interest and circularity is off-the-charts bad here. The article was almost entirely created by Wikimedia Foundation employees, singing the praises of the Wikimedia Foundation, and it has no substantive sourcing that doesn't cite directly or indirectly to a single report which was BOUGHT by the Wikimedia Foundation. Burn it with fire. Alsee (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability whatsoever, and the article reads like a soapbox piece. The WMF/Ijon should be ashamed of themselves, because this is beyond ridiculous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alsee. That's just about it, really, except I'd burn it hotter. Begoon ^talk 18:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had my eye on this one and someone beat me to it. It has some minor mentions in some texts, but it doesn't appear to have the sort of widespread usage to even consider an article at this point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfD policy says, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It appears that this has not been done. Also, those evaluating this AfD should be advised and aware that a permanently banned Wikipedian, Gregory Kohs, with his commentary on Wikipediocracy and on his news story at Examiner.com ("Wikimedia Foundation caught self-promoting on Wikipedia", Feb 21) is largely responsible for the attention being given to this Wikipedia article. Your Delete decision may be interpreted by some as a show of support for Mr. Kohs' tactics. - 2001:558:1400:10:2C22:7EAC:8121:DDB6 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. The article still needs the urgent application of a flamethrower, though. Maybe we can use a loving and thoughtful flamethrower and catch up on the paperwork later? Begoon ^talk 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying article creator:

Done

I have no idea who Gregory Kohs is or what his issue is, but this article is clearly problematical no matter who drew attention to it. Alsee (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is writing a news article a bad tactic that shouldn't be supported?Bosstopher (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do know who Gregory Kohs is and disapprove of his obsession with criticizing Wikipedia everywhere, at all times, for everything imaginable. But this article should be deleted for the reasons stated eloquently by the nominator and others. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Results of a Google search:
- 124 occurrences online of "participatory grantmaking" without a mention of Lafayette, Wikimedia or Wikipedia [11]
- 178 occurrences online of "participatory grantmaking" with a mention of Lafayette, Wikimedia or Wikipedia [12]
- Just looking for "participatory grantmaking" without any other arguments yields "about 154" results: [13]

From these results it appears that well over half of all online mentions of this term are somehow connected to Lafayette and/or Wikimedia.

Note Meta edit by a WMF staffer on July 22, 2014, adding Lafayette to the Wikimania schedule: [14] July 28, LaFayette's Matthew Hart tweets about Wikimania: [15] August 7 tweets:[16] [17] Andreas JN 466 07:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable marketing cruft with scant hope of improvement, ethical issues aside. HiDrNick! 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about a marketing term used primarily by one company, sourced mainly to a publication of the company using it, to Wikimedia blogs regarding WMF's deal with that company, to the version history of the article itself(!), and to sources that don't appear to contain the term (only one non-Lafayette source mentions it, as far as I can see)? It's blatant marketing, and I'd say it's even close to a G11 speedy delete. Squinge (talk) 15:38, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Valor Victory Gaming[edit]

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

Many of the articles linked to are no longer valid, this page has only been updated several times in over a year and a half, visiting the website shows they only have one active team in the game Fifa. Team has only 1 Lan accomplishment in the last 2 years and several since 2012. All of the collaborations section links to articles that are not valid. AcePuppy (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. It seems some of its members sometimes contribute to a "geek themed" blog, but that's them writing, not articles covering them, that doesn't help their case for notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this passes WP:GNG. Coverage in a blog by members is not WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:47, 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. As the size of the city (which I have actually lived in, ironically...) does not make a politician notable, per WP:POLITICIAN, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burgess McCranie[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being the mayor of a town of less than 100k people; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill six Bossier City mayor articles in a period of eight minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against George Nattin at .52, against Lo Walker at .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:52 a.m. for Mr. Nattin but am not sure, maybe 12:52 p.m. How could he read and analyze six revised articles in eight minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIf one sees a bunch of similar articles, with the same notability problems, it is not remarkable for an editor to place deletes in the related AFDs in a short period, or to nominate several in a short period. . A clockwatching argument is as unimpressive as "otherstuffexists."Edison (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

Mr. McCranie left office in 1957. There are sources here showing his notability. All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable, even if more material on them would be desirable though not yet located. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bossier City is not a regionally important city, it is a suburb of Shreveport. It is not large enough or important enough to make the mayor default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Other stuff exists" is not a workable argument. Wikipedia has lots of articles that do not meet inclusion criteria. Articles are judged on their merits. That said, being a member of a state legislature is a position that makes people notable, being a mayor is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not heard of Bossier City being called a "suburb" of Shreveport; they are in different parishes. Mr. McCranie falls under "local politicians", and there is nothing in the Wikipedia rules that says mayors regardless of the size of the city are not notable if there is coverage of the individual. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're cheek-and-jowl on Google Maps; "suburb" wouldn't be improper. Pax 08:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:45, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish (county) seat. His subsequent offices are also non-notable. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. He also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article ~~(which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could).~~ --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bossier City may not be the parish seat, but it does have a majority of the parish's population. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population is not our criterion. It's "city of regional importance". --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was first mayor under the city commission government. A pre-Internet figure, there is not a lot of information on his four-year term. All these mayors should be notable under "local politicians".

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, leaning towards keep. Nakon 03:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman L. Fuller[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being the mayor of a town of less than 100k people; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill six Bossier City mayor articles in a period of eight minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against George Nattin at .52, against Lo Walker at .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:52 a.m. for Mr. Nattin but am not sure, maybe 12:52 p.m. How could he read and analyze six revised articles in eight minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even his Shreveport Times obituary (secondhand through Findagrave) says nothing about any achievements; it only talks about the funeral arrangements. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

Mr. Hoffman left office in 1953. All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable, even if more material on them would be desirable though not yet located. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Mr. Hoffman is an historical figure in Bossier City. He left office forty years before Internet was even beginning; there are no other sources I can find for his article.

In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities. The citing of a 60,000 population is not there at all. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bossier City is neither populous enough nor regionally significant enough for the mayor to be notable for such. Other stuff exists is a bad and non-workable argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the GNG based on the sources. It doesn't matter that he does not have inherent notability based on the number of people that live in his city. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:39, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:43, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. He also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage; the listed sources are mostly a name-check saying that he was mayor. Ironically, his son Hoffman L. Fuller Jr., a law professor, might be notable - but he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, which leaves me wondering - if the mayors are so all-fired important, how come nobody ever bothered to add them to the city article?). --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bossier City mayors are in a template at the bottom of the Bossier City Wikipedia article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Then a redirect to the city page, in place of a deletion, could be appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 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. As the size of the city (which I have actually lived in, ironically...) does not make a politician notable, per WP:POLITICIAN, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Anding[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a 60k population town; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill five Bossier City mayor articles in a period of seven minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against Lo Walker at the time .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:51 a.m. for Mr. Walker but am not sure, maybe 12:51 p.m. How could he read and analyze five revised articles in seven minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

Mr. Anding died in office in 1983. There are sources here showing his notability. All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable, even if more material on them would be desirable though not yet located. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note In Ashland, Kentucky, only three of 26 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in other offices, one a county judge, another a state senator, and a third a U.S. representative. Three or four of the other 23 mayors were previously city council members. All Ashland mayors listed here have been deemed notable.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mr. Anding was president of the Louisiana Municipal Assn. in 1981; that made him the top mayor in the state for a year. Even presidents of state bar associations are deemed notable in Wikipedia articles on the view that such lawyers are at the peak of their profession by serving as state bar presidents. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bossier City, sister city of Shreveport, is regionally prominent; it is the ninth largest city in the state and some studies have shown it the first, second, or third fastest-growing city in the state.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another point Mr. Anding was the retired commander at Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City at the time of his first election as mayor on April 2, 1977. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:47, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. He also fails WP:GNG; all coverage is about routine local matters (he fired a police officer, he inspected tornado damage, etc.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could). --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notable as commander of Barksdale Air Force Base and as president of the Louisiana Municipal Assn. from 1980 to 1981. The Bossier City article has the mayors and their dates at the bottom in a box. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Since the mayors are listed in a template, a redirect to the article could be accepted in place of a delete. About his military career, he was a colonel; that is not a rank that grants automatic notability. Neither does being president of the non-notable Louisiana Municipal Association. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN above. And respectfully, I must say that many of the "keep" opinions in these Bossier City discussions sound to me like local pride more than interpretation of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My comments and "keep" vote are not motivated by "local pride". I have never been to Bossier City and don't know anyone from there. I have never even lived in that part of the country. But I think regional elitism is a greater problem than "local pride". Kestenbaum (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had you heard of it before this? Geogene (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was well known in even the 1940s for The Bossier Strip, which was subsequently superseded by casinos. Even if I had never heard of the community, I wouldn't favor removing all of this material. It's what is there from an Internet search. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Anding was head of LMA, which made him the choice of his mayoral colleagues statewide in 1980. That is like being president of a state bar association or a state historical association. Makes him at the top of his profession. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which confers notability. I have no doubt that Mayor Anding was at the pinnacle of his profession. Not just anyone is entrusted with that office in a city of 10,000 people, much less 80,000. But I'm not sure that he's notable enough for an encyclopedia about him, according to the current rules that apply to local politicians. Geogene (talk) 18:50, 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. Nakon 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Rowland[edit]

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

Seemingly a rather average TV journalist; the only thing she's done, the only thing preventing an A7 speedy deletion, is an award from an educational charity. No evidence of notability, unless I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised at this nomination and particularly the suggestion that this bio should be close to being speedily deleted! Please do more reading around before such nominations. I've added a number of sources. Rowland was a long-standing foreign correspondent for the BBC, and has won awards for her reporting with both the BBC and Al Jazeera English - major news organisations. She received a lot of praise for her reporting in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia. Her decision to testify against Milosevic received a lot of attention, it even seems to be a common case study in journalism ethics - take a look at a Google Books search to see this. This is not an "average" TV journalist, and even if she were "average" there is enough commentary on her over the years to satisfy WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's now plenty of sources. Easily passes WP:GNG now. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 15:34, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion. Nakon 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jake W. Cameron[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a town of less than 100k residents. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill five Bossier City mayor articles in a period of seven minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against Lo Walker at the time .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:51 a.m. for Mr. Walker but am not sure, maybe 12:51 p.m. How could he read and analyze five revised articles in seven minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a historic figure, not a contemporary candidate on the make who is using Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle — the WP:POLITICIAN high bar is meant to filter out those unelected candidates, not deceased historic figures. An elected mayor of a city of 60,000 and the subject of multiple pieces of substantial media coverage. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage I'm seeing seems pretty normal for a mid-size town mayor. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

Mr. Cameron left office in 1961. There are sources here showing his notability. All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable, even if more material on them would be desirable though not yet located. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as noted above, arguments about what already exist on Wikipedia are simply invalid as an argument about this particular article. Arguing based on what has already survived afd is similarly irrelevant. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bossier City is not a significant enough city to grant notability to the mayors. The fact that some other even less major cities have way too many articles on their mayors only shows that wikipedia has not yet managed to consistently apply its guidelines, not that this mayor fits the guidelines. Additionally the guidelines for inclusion of politicians have become more stringent over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note many of the articles on mayors of Hoboken have been nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hoboken mayors still on board. Your attempts to remove them have thus far failed to gain hardly any supporters.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:48, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. His other offices (police chief, school board member) are likewise non-notable. He also fails WP:GNG since all coverage was routine and local: he completed a master plan, he honored veterans, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could). --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) I've read a great many Wikipedia articles on specific cities, and very, very few of them feature a complete list of past mayors. (2) It seems a bit disingenuous to complain that Bossier City isn't the parish seat, when it has the same name as the parish and contains the majority of the parish's population. (3) Cities are typically ranked and classified based on population; I know there's no precise threshold, but the more people a city has, the more important it is. If someone were to discuss the relative importance of say Phoenix and Tucson, the first thing mentioned would be their populations. Kestenbaum (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it would be the fact that Phoenix is the state capital. Although it's also true that Phoenix has THREE TIMES the population of Tucson and is the sixth largest city in the U.S. Anyhow, the guideline we use isn't population; it's "regional prominence". A city of 50,000 in Los Angeles County might not be regionally prominent; a city of 20,000 in Alaska might be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 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 keep. Consensus leans towards keep on this nomination. Nakon 03:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)~~ The results was No consensus. Nakon 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo Walker[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a 60k population town; doesn't come close to meeting WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill five Bossier City mayor articles in a period of seven minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against Lo Walker at the time .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:51 a.m. for Mr. Walker but am not sure, maybe 12:51 p.m. How could he read and analyze five revised articles in seven minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC) He also moved against George Nattin at .52.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment approximately an hour after the nominations for deletion by ohnoitsjamie, User:Deunanknute posted the line: delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN. Several of those "delete" statements for all six Bossier City mayors being challenged were made in the same minute of time. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete has more news coverage than most local mayors, but most of it is routine. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing that sets this small-town mayor above the crowd. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted.

Bangor, Maine, a city about half the size of Bossier City, has eight mayors on Wikipedia and twelve city council members. Many times city council members are excluded from Wikipedia unless they have held other offices. There are no articles on Bossier City Council members.

Here is a listing of certain cities, followed by population, and number of mayoral Wikipedia articles:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13
Wilmington, Delaware, 70,000, 10
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 70,000, 10
Ashland, Kentucky, 22,000, 27
Melbourne, Florida, 76,000, 33
Fairbanks, Alaska, 32,000, 7
Missoula, Montana, 66,000, 16
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 59,000, 41

So Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000 10 is consistent with the above listing.

All these Bossier City mayors should be considered notable. There is considerable sourcing on Mr. Walker. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia also says notability is not determined by similar articles. See WP:WHATABOUTX.
Comment. Have you actually examined the "sources"? The only one that even edges into the same county as notability is from a local newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment- is Bossier City, Louisiana regionally prominent? And again, how is this person notable? Deunanknute (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In Hoboken, New Jersey, smaller than Bossier City, seventeen of 22 mayors with Wikipedia articles served in no higher office; a few had been on the city council before becoming mayors. Five others also held other offices, mostly in the state legislature. There is nothing in the Wikipedia rules about mayors and population of their cities. Mr. Walker is well-known regionally and should qualify as the first Republican mayor of Bossier City if other grounds are insufficient.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Four of the five mayors with Wikipedia articles of Scranton, Pennsylvania, about 10,000 larger than Bossier City, served in no higher position than mayor. A sixth, Terence V. Powderly was also a figure in organized labor. All the Scranton and Bossier City mayors should be declared notable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bossier City is not regionally important enough of populous enough to justify this article. Other stuff exists is not a workable argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bossier City is either the second or third fast-growing city in the state has been for some time. The population is believed to be past 65,000. You should not demean the city because of its size. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the city There is never a need to delete mayor articles when they can be redirected to the city article and a list made there. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Elected mayor of a city of 60,000 people should be sufficient for a WP:Politician pass as an important local figure. Here's my personal benchmark: 50,000+ for mayor, 100,000+ for city councillor. Carrite (talk) 12:47, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:50, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small-town mayors are generally not notable. I see a "region" as being an area several states in size, Shreveport would be a city of "regional prominence", Bossier City is not. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a useful rebuttal. Geogene (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Wikipedia rules do not mention "small-town mayors" or population of cities. Bossier City is some 65,000 as is the ninth largest in the state. Such mayors come under "local politicians" with adequate media coverage. Mr. Walker hence qualifies. He could also qualify as the first ever Republican mayor of the city.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I was referring to common AfD outcomes, not the policy. The policy says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. (WP:GNG) We can disagree on the definition of significant there, but I don't consider that the same as saying, in effect, "If I can find some sources, then this person is notable." As for being notable for being the first Republican mayor there, wouldn't that argument imply that the first Republican (Democrat/Libertarian/Green/etc) elected mayor in any city of any size would be automatically notable for party affiliation alone? Geogene (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First Republican in South, first black, first woman mayor quality on that basis alone. The sources are independent of the subject.Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so the above remark doesn't cause confusion, Lo Walker is neither black nor a woman. But being elected as a Republican in the South is the same kind of thing? Geogene (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By 2005, being elected as a Republican in the South was hardly surprising. You almost wonder, what took them so long? --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Some seven new paragraphs have been added to the article. Mr. Walker is the first Republican mayor of Bossier City. At one time this was an unusual development.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. It doesn't matter if some other mayors of some other cities have articles; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. I am saying "weak delete" because there is one media story significantly about him - a human interest story about him (at age 81) dating a 79-year-old former sweetheart. Otherwise coverage is routine and local. The fact that he is the first Republican mayor of his particular town is not noteworthy; this is an international encyclopedia after all, not a chronicle of every political development in every small-to-medium-sized town in every country in the world.. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also be OK with Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article (which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could). --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) I've read a great many Wikipedia articles on specific cities, and very, very few of them feature a complete list of past mayors. (2) It seems a bit disingenuous to complain that Bossier City isn't the parish seat, when it has the same name as the parish and contains the majority of the parish's population. (3) Cities are typically ranked and classified based on population; I know there's no precise threshold, but the more people a city has, the more important it is. If someone were to discuss the relative importance of say Phoenix and Tucson, the first thing mentioned would be their populations. Kestenbaum (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think population numbers count, but there are other factors that can be used to define "prominence". Cultural importance, broadly defined, is one. If hardly anyone outside of an area has heard about a particular city, that says something meaningful about that city's prominence that population comparisons don't capture. Geogene (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Washington Times source on Mr. Walker. There is a template of Bossier City mayors at the bottom of the Bossier City article. The article is too long to redirect to the Bossier City page itself.Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Also added Biz Magazine. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC) and The Forum Newsweekly.Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:52, 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 no consensus. No consensus to delete, close to netural on this one. Nakon 03:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Nattin[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a town of 60k residents, which does not meet WP:PROD guidelines. Prod was disputed by creator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ohnoitsjamie sought to kill six Bossier City mayor articles in a period of eight minutes on Feb. 10. He moved against George Nattin at .52, against Lo Walker at .51; against Jake W. Cameron at .47, at Marvin Anding at .49, at Hoffman fuller at .46, and Burgess McCranie at .44. I suppose this means 12:52 a.m. for Mr. Nattin but am not sure, maybe 12:52 p.m. How could he read and analyze six revised articles in eight minutes? Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable local politician per WP:POLITICIAN Deunanknute (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability rules say nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. There are ten articles on Bossier City mayors, all but two recently submitted. Wilmington, Delaware, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, both 9,000 larger than Bossier City, have ten mayors each with Wikipedia articles. Missoula, Montana, which is 5,000 larger than Bossier City, has articles on sixteen mayors. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is smaller than Bossier City and has articles on 41 mayors. Fairbanks, Alaska, is less than half the size of Bossier City. It has seven mayors on Wikipedia. The notability rule says there must be extensive press coverage of a local politician. That's all it says. It does that say that the press coverage has to be out-of-state. Therefore, the coverage can be in local newspapers. Any mayor anywhere is going to be carried in the local newspaper, some more than others. Mr. Nattin is referenced in papers in Midland, Texas; El Dorado and Camden, Arkansas, and Shreveport, Lake Charles, and Monroe, Louisiana, all obtained in an Internet search. With three terms, he is the second longest serving mayor of his city; two others are tied for first place with four terms.Billy Hathorn Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists. If you look closely at the articles about the mayors from those towns, you'll see that most of them went on to do more notable things (i.e., become a governor or member of congress). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Not true of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I checked the first twenty mayors there as listed alphabetically, and only two served in an office other than mayor, one a state Cabinet position prior to 1840 and another as lieutenant govenor. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Here is a Wikipedia article about one of the Lancaster mayors:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Edwin Smeltz was an American politician. He served as the nineteenth mayor of Lancaster, Pennsylvania from 1894 to 1898.[1]
That's all that is there. This person and others with similar one-line articles are considered notable.Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'." This referenced article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence does say more than that. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment These articles were probably all nominated at the same time for the same reason I've been commenting at the same time; for a group of very similar articles, it's sometimes easier to research them together. Also, please only add comments to the end of a discussion. Deunanknute (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bossier City is a small city that is secondary to Shreveport and so lacks regional significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While secondary to Shreveport, RS's would appear to dispute the conclusion that Bossier City is not regionally significant. See, e.g. Historic Shreveport-Bossier: An Illustrated History of Shreveport and Bossier City. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:45, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With all respect to the good faith of every participant here, I sense a tendency to equate "city of regional importance" with "city I've heard of". From the standpoint of Wikipedians based in East and West Coast urban centers, or outside the USA, Louisiana occupies little mind space, and "Bossier City" is a ridiculous-sounding name. To those unfamiliar with the region, it doesn't evoke a city larger than (say) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (which it is). We should pay attention to the population numbers and avoid jumping to an impressionistic conclusion. Kestenbaum (talk) 21:43, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He is NOT notable per WP:POLITICIAN, since he was not mayor of a city of regional prominence; Bossier City isn't even the parish seat. And population numbers are irrelevant; despite assertions that 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever population makes a mayor automatically notable, no such number has ever achieved consensus. However, he may be notable per WP:GNG - ironically, because of criminal charges brought against him. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would also not object to Richard Arthur Norton's suggestion (above) of a redirect to the city article ~~(which surprisingly does not have a list of its former mayors, but it could).~~ --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bossier City may not be the parish seat, but it is by far the largest city in the parish, and has a clear majority of the parish's entire population. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parish seat is Benton, a very small community but I understand growing too, about 15 miles up the highway from Bossier City. Why the concern about Bossier City not being the parish seat? Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MelanieN above, but with the comment that Nattin was not convicted. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if it were the parish seat, that's quite a way from being "of regional importance". Admittedly, "regional" is open to interpretation, but I interpret a region as being several states in size. Not several counties. This encyclopedia is of global coverage. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) moved to bottom @ Geogene (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regional cities. If that means over several states, then only Texarkana in Texas, for instance, would be a regional city, and it is less than half the size of Bossier City. Under that interpretation, Amarillo or even Houston could not qualify. Louisiana would have no regional cities under that view except perhaps for New Orleans. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:20, 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. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Advisor[edit]

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

Non-notable website, no independent sources. A Google search renders such fascinating tidbits as them having Facebook and Twitter accounts and an app, but no independent in-depth coverage. Does not meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, website does not appear to be notable. Nakon 03:18, 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 merge to List of nuclear reactors. Nakon 03:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of PWR reactors[edit]

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

This badly maintained and incomplete list is entirely superfluous to the far better List of nuclear reactors. Because PWRs are by far the most common type of reactors, the vast majority of reactors on that page are PWRs, and it is indicated when they are not Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per nom. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP Engine[edit]

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

asserts a lot of notability, but I was unable to find independent sources that didn't read like press releases Deunanknute (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section of "Critical Response," with 1st-party references both about the company itself and its impact on Austin (i.e. multiple awards for best place to work) as well as on the product (i.e. reviews both from customers and from professional experts), as well as WP Engine's role in the WordPress community over the past 5 years, none of which are PR-based. There are literally dozens of additional online reviews of the product; I could include more than the three now cited if that would be useful in demonstrating notability. I do understand that the information in "company history" is not notable, but are relevant to the description of the company. Asmartbear (talk) 21:10, 15 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! 12:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards don't necessarily make a company any more notable. Blah2 (talk) 00:35, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dewana Baba[edit]

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

The article locates the village in Pakistan, the only source locates it in Afghanistan. The author is using it to publicise his business Two Star Pakistan. The rest of it is unsourced, mis-spelt, non-NPOV OR. Bazj (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 18:52, 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! 12:25, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Nakon 03:21, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readspeaker[edit]

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

Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turns up how-to articles and company PR, but no significant independent coverage Dialectric (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep looks to be widely used. A quick search turned up [[18]] [[19]] and [[20]]. Two US gov't sites and a major college use this software on their sites, and probably more. I think this imparts plenty of notability. Deunanknute (talk) 22:14, 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! 12:24, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 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. Nakon 03:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lynn (pastor)[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional piece for a non-notable dude. As even the user who removed the PROD pointed out, the secondary sources are low-quality and/or actually affiliated with the subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The promotional nature of the article doesn't really have a bearing on this discussion; the key issue is notability, and in particular, whether he is notable for more than just one event. St Anselm (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I see this man as a relatively NN street preacher: such people are not that uncommon. The only ground I could see for this being kept is if his case should become a cause celebre, as to police interference with freedom of speech or religious freedom. I do not read the Canadian media, and so do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this happened several months ago and nothing has come of it, neither coverage nor cause-celebre status... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:14, 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! 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently the promotional stuff got removed; it's not promotional now. What it is is just media coverage from when he's in the news. We need secondary sources. Restore once he's getting covered in books, or once the news media start providing significant retrospective coverage of the guy. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his best efforts at making a homophobic scene of himself, he has not appeared in any reliable sources. Delete. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suelta La Sopa[edit]

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

Celebrity gossip programme that has been tagged since 2013 with no indication of notability. It lists a Youtube and IMDB source while listing three newsblogs that essentially regurgitate a press-release. Production section is overly promotional. None of the presenters have pages or seem to be of note. Karst (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 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 article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

666bet[edit]

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

There is no doubt that this company exists, but as the only sources I can find are from the companies they sponsor there is no indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 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. Nakon 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getcha Pull: A Tribute to Dimebag Darrell[edit]

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

The first nomination nearly 5 years ago resulted in no consensus, but there has been no improvement to the article since and even the link in the article to the primary source is no longer valid. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the invalid link can be found here, giving some notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a primary source, it doesn't establish any notability for the album, and in fact doesn't even mention the album. WP:NALBUMS says an album must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hardly the case here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 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! 07:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. I fail to see how the link given (retrieved on web.archive.org) establishes any notability with respect to policy: no "official" recognition (items 2 through 7 of WP:NALBUMS), and not really a "non-trivial, published work appearing in a source that is reliable", let alone several of them. More sources could of course change that. Tigraan (talk) 13:12, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:04, 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. Nakon 03:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Puliyoor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no reliable sources to sustain article. The two sources used in the previous AfD [21],[22] are virtually identicall and therefore not independant of each other and are likely PR pieces so not independant of the subject. They also spend more time talking about his medicated hair oil than his poetry.

I can not find any indication that they would support notability per WP:ARTIST or WP:ENT. I can find no information on the awards claimed. In most cases a search on the award brings his WP entry up as first result. Notability can be niether estabilshed nor verified. All references in article are to blogs, Youtube or retail sites. JBH (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 06:25, 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! 07:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tagged for many months for BLP violations. He's a poet, but it appears, not a notable one. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 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. Nakon 03:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Styrk.com[edit]

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

Alexa rank not significant, many of the sources on the page are not about the site or are sources from the site itself, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:N. Also promotional. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS can WP:V verify the WP:GNG notability of the article's subject. AadaamS (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 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! 07:29, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 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. Nakon 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

England national rugby union team – Results 2000–present[edit]

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

Article has not been updated since 2008 and contains same information as List of England national rugby union team results 2000–09 Bcp67 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 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! 07:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very obvious candidate for deletion given there are separate articles for 2000-2009 and 2010-2019 and there is no obvious place to redirect an article of this title. I'd say this could certainly have been deleted by PROD without the need for an AfD discussion. Aspirex (talk) 07:42, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 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. Consensus herein is clearly established for deletion of the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Beesley Starling[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While well-formatted and written, the current article relies heavily on crowd-sourced or user-generated websites like LinkedIn, Wikia, and Crunchbase. It uses primary sources from Wikimedia press releases and websites and the few secondary press sources mixed in are just brief mentions or quotes. A quick Google News search doesn't turn up anything more substantial. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did find one good in-depth article in the current page here. Even if it is only a local source, a second source of that level of depth may allow us to re-write it based on secondary sources and remove all the primary or crowd-sourced sources on the current page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: Hasn't the subject of this article tried several times unsuccessfully to get it deleted? It seems as though I remember something like that, but there was a fight to keep it. Wikimandia (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I just came across this article while doing cleanup on Wikia CorporateM (Talk) 08:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has been to Afd often - mostly during 2005 and 2006 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding all the previously hidden AfDs; I'm skimming the old discussions, but a new nomination still seems appropriate. Our notability standards have risen since 2005. Many of those discussions did not actually focus on sources. In one KEEP vote, the editor actually advocated we "bend the rules" because of her contributions to Wikipedia and in many others editors said she was notable without providing sources, or the source provided did not actually verify notability.

Meanwhile, this AfD ~~seems to have been closed incorrectly~~ (Clarification: BLPREQUESTDELETE did not exist at the time the AfD was closed, but by today's standard it would have been deleted.) by @RasputinAXP:. The article-subject @Angela: requested deletion, therefore WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would require us to delete the article if there was no consensus, not default to keep. CorporateM (Talk) 10:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, WP:BLPRD didn't exist when I was an admin; however, as I'm no longer an admin and I've been pinged, I can express what I originally thought 9 years ago: Delete this article. Also, at the time somebody would've been absolutely stunned that I'd have kept the article at all, as I was-and-am a Deletionist, but...que sera sera. RasputinAXP 17:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please! I'm the subject. The problem with articles about non-notable people is they can't be kept up to date as there are no new reliable sources. As an example, only one of my children was listed in the article (until this week when she was removed). I guess the other child didn't have any sources to say she existed. I can't be bothered arguing about COI policies so I won't edit the page despite the fact it has been inaccurate for years. I did point out some inaccuracies on the talk page 3 years ago but nothing changed. It's an odd snapshot of part of my life in 2005. It's not an accurate encyclopedia article and it can't be improved. Angela (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment' I believe as deletion has be requested by the subject that changes the situation somewhat, raising the notability bar that subjects have to jump over. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no useful encyclopedic content and as the subject points out above, it is most unlikely that sources will become available for updates. Notability is not established—Wikia does nothing more than note that Angela was a founder. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing needs to be added to Angela's incontrovertible reasoning above. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am generally not a fan of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; or rather, I think it is often used outside its remit. This, on the other hand, seems precisely what it was designed for. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing about this article clearly passes any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've met Angela in real life on a number of occasions, and she's a lovely person. But, she wouldn't have an article in any other reference work. This artlcle is simple self-referential Wikicruft that would have been a straightforward WP:BIO anywhere else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; I've also met Angela; had a lovely lunch with her a few years back. Insufficient reliable sources to keep and maintain this article. Her request is quite sensible. Antandrus (talk) 20:05, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Matters[edit]

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

references are mere notices. "Fastest growing" has a tendency to mean "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - due to the generic name of the business, searching for sources is a bit difficult. However, I found several [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. While none of these sources is a slam dunk piece of evidence, collectively I feel they convey sufficient notability to have an article. It is probably true that "fastest growing" meant "not yet notable" when it was first awarded in 2010, but 5 years later notability has now been established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I appreciate there are sources but a fundamental problem is there is no real explanation to what the company is or what it does to a man in the street, which is a frequent problem with non-notable companies. The company's website : "Real Matters creates powerful insights into residential and commercial properties. Leveraging its cloud-based technology platform, redihive" is full of buzzword bingo which doesn't help. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:05, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:13, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 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 delete. Nakon 03:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven Lounge[edit]

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

The only non local source is Huffington Post, not an acceptable source for notability . (The BBC reference is about their program, not the club) DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find the nomination statement to be rather lacking. The Huffington Post, for example, is normally a RS, so dismissing it without explanation is pretty silly. Local sources CAN convey notability, especially when by "local" you mean publications in a city of nearly 2 million people (Philadelphia). That said, there is a real referencing problem: refs 1,3, & 4 are incidental mentions - the story is about something else. Ref 2 (the Huffington one) is a blog and probably not subject to editorial oversight - it may convey some level of notability, but not as much as regular HP story. The final ref is the best one, but even it is just one paragraph of text. Thus, there doesn't seem to be enough RS coverage to establish notability. However, I will wait for input from AfC acceptor @Joe Decker: before decided for sure. (Incidentally there is a notable establishment in Detroit by the same name). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the BBC content at the moment, link broken or something, but otherwise I agree completely with ThaddeusB's analysis of sources. Might have flubbed this, might have thought there was more to the BBC coverage, I honestly don't recall. Weird. Seems like it would have taken a fair bit more for me to think this meet WP:CORP. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:13, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 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 no consensus. Nakon 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Key Partners[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable firm--most sources are press releases DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - only 1/5 sources is actually a press release (Reuters doesn't publish press releases). The real problem with 3/5 and most of the sources I found is they are either just "company X hired Stone Key" or "person from Stone Key says Y". However, I did find two substantial sources (one of which is already in the article): Reuters and NY Times. Those 2 should be sufficient to establish notability, and the many press quotes referring to Stone Key as experts helps a bit too. Any promotional undertones can be corrected via normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 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. Nakon 03:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Lawson-Remer[edit]

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

She may or may not be notable, but this is a press release where the promotional element is so extensive, that I have been unable to improve it. Better to start over . DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know if the article is a "press release", but it certainly suffers from over referencing which makes notability hard to judge, at the very least. Lawson-Remer does not appear to pass WP:PROF, so would have to pass the GNG to be notable. I check a couple sources and found they were either trivial mentions or primary sources, but I didn't check nearly all 45 so I can't make a firm conclusion. Perhaps Samee who accepted this at AfC can give some guidance at which sources to check. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 07:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. I think David's PR assessment is correct, not to mention there seems to be no credible claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's so much Wikipedia:Wikipuffery here that I'm truly unable to discern whether there is any actual notability, and looking elsewhere (e.g. Google scholar) turns up nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...which aspires to revolutionize rights development research by measuring governmental capacity..." bleh. Wikipedia is not a résumé-polisher. Pax 08:34, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Spenser Levine[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:BALL, may become notable in the future, but not yet Deunanknute (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 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! 07:10, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 03:31, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter January[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. I could find no significant coverage, there is a journalist of the same name though. I'm sure someone will recycle that ambassadors are inherently notable, but consensus in previous AfDs clearly disproves that. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to be notable. Nakon 03:31, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thamizhz Thiyagarajan[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced autobiography, fails WP:FILMMAKER, and zero coverage in WP:RS. The three references in Tamil given from pesaamoli.com and tamilstar.com don't mention him, according to Google Translate. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the three references in Tamil currently cited are all copies of the same interview, posted to three different websites. I don't read Tamil, but the Google translation says that the person being interviewed is called Sridhar. Maybe this is something to do with surname conventions in Tamil, but the article creator has also repeatedly added the English translation of the title as "Film Maker: Thamizhz Thiyagarajan (Interview)", which doesn't come close to matching the Google translation of the title: "French Film Festival short film selections Donna!". Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 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. Nakon 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GuruKPO[edit]

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

non-notable website, all refs are primary sources, COI issues Deunanknute (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Nothing found on a quick Web search. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 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. Nakon 03:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Heartbreak Express[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.--Sismarinho (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.--Sismarinho (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources and stable working in Full Impact Pro and indy circuit in the US. And this stable was active during few months.Sismarinho (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a search, I found this article from the St. Petersburg Times, but no other significant coverage in reliable independent sources. If someone could find another article or two that I may have missed, I'll reconsider. Nikki♥311 18:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable third party sources presented. MPJ -US 22:43, 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's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Association of Rahe Bhander Affectionate[edit]

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

Lack of significance and does not meet notability requirement Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Closer should also simu-judge YARA (Youth Organization) (a redirect to this article which would be orphaned). Ibrahim Husain Meraj may also wish to consider nominating Universal Sufi Festival and Rahe Bhander Ennoble Award. Pax 08:43, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

doest not meet wiki GNG cirteria , very few notable references, eventhough some famous names are just listed the evenets notablity is not known (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination for deletion, noticed last closure eventhough do not accept the notability discussion Shrikanthv (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD debate closed as keep less than two weeks ago. What has changed since then? • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest participants: User:Missvain, User:The Banner, User:Anupmehra, User:Раціональне анархіст, User:Redtigerxyz, and User:Mr. Guye. Cunard (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same !vote as before, for the same reasons. Pax 04:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -Last afd was recently closed as keep. One should respect the consensus and bring this up here if necessary not earlier than 6 months. I will request nominator to take a look at community view at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion and withdraw their nomination. @Cunard : Thanks for the ping. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said in earlier Afd, when the contest was "Gladrags Manhunt", it was much more popular and ample press coverage for it exists. However, since it became unisex, its popularity has waned, but that does not mean we delete it. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, nothing has changed since the last AfD. The article still reads like an advertisement and is hardly sourced. And nobody seems to bother or willing to do anything about that. The Banner talk 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added various cleanup tags.--Mr. Guye (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should assume good faith, especially since the nominator didn't participate in the last discussion and may not have known the last discussion had occurred.
Keep. As I said before, covered in high-profile Indian media. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:35, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali ibn Abi Talha[edit]

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

No sources. No info. Not sure why it's here so long... I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for want of a redirect target, I think. There's very little information, much less significant coverage, about Ali ibn Abi Talha, a Muslim scholar of the 8th century AD. He is best known (or, indeed, only known) for his role in the isnad (or chain of transmission) of hadith originating with Abd Allah ibn Abbas. That leaves us without sufficient material to meet notability requirements, although, more broadly speaking, there's a surprising amount of literature about the isnad of ibn Abbas's hadith. If ibn Abbas's article covered that literature, it would be ideal to redirect this there (where this subject would surely be mentioned). But it doesn't. And our broader articles on the history and terminology of hadith literature do not examine specific isnad with the detail needed to make a redirect appropriate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish Ossifrage. Pax 08:48, 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. Closing as keep, but the article needs sources added now. Nakon 03:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Curve[edit]

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

Edited by User:MickeyRawlings himself. But this book fails WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Just another book. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. BRMo (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:AUTO. m'encarta (t) 03:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see any evidence that the person editing as User:MickeyRawlings (named after the book's main character) is the same person as the author, Troy Soos. The article was created, and most of the content added by other editors. BRMo (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) removed comment after looking at user's other edits. BRMo (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No reviews and doesn't meet any of other inclusion criteria.--Antigng (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
1. From Publishers Weekly:
  Flappers, jazz and Prohibition are often used to evoke the hedonistic 1920s, but Rawlings discovers different hallmarksA black baseball, the Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow and lynchingsAfor his fine new mystery, which doubles as a cultural and political history. Peripatetic ballplayer Mickey Rawlings carries bat, glove and sleuthing skills from Cincinnati (where he played in his most recent outing, The Cincinnati Red Stalkings) to join the American League's St. Louis Browns for their 1922 season. Using an assumed name to hide his major league identity because of organized baseball's ban on interracial games, Rawlings plays with the semi-pro Elcars against the Negro East St. Louis Cubs as a lark. An ugly confrontation during the game is prologue to the later lynching of the Cubs' star player. Spurred by fear that the volatile situation could lead to a repeat of the terrible race riots of 1917, which left hundreds (mostly blacks) dead in East St. Louis, Rawlings tries to figure out who is behind the murder. In the process, he learns and reveals much about the grim realities behind baseball's ban on black players and also much about himself. Though filled with glimpses of baseball greats from both races and hinging on a well-constructed case of murder, this novel stands out particularly for its skillfully drawn background and intelligent use of historical and social detail.
2. From Wes Lukowsky of Booklist:
  All St. Louis Browns utility infielder Mickey Rawlings wanted was a few extra at-bats and a chance to get into the 1922 World Series. But when he agrees to appear as a ringer for a semipro team in a game against a local Negro League club, and the KKK causes a riot that leads to the Negro squad's star pitcher being lynched, Mickey finds himself working with a black attorney, Franklin Aubrey, to unmask the hooded killers. Through the course of his investigation, Mickey learns plenty about the racial conflict that divides the Mississippi River city, and he also finds that certain unsavory individuals are capable of using society's ills for their own gain. The sixth Mickey Rawlings mystery is the strongest in the series. He is growing as a character while he ages as a ballplayer, and his romance with former actress Margie is sweet by modern standards yet scandalous for its time. Soos delivers a richly atmospheric journey through time with Rawlings serving as an engaging guide.
3. From Kirkus Reviews:
  Hanging Curve ($22.00; Oct.; 272 pp.; 1-57566-455-0) Journeyman infielder Mickey Rawlings's biggest innings have always been off the field, and it's no surprise that his sixth season (The Cincinnati Red Stalkings, 1998, etc.) will take him away from his current team, the St. Louis Browns. This time out, hes to play as a ringer against the Negro League's East St. Louis Cubsand against the KKK and a city still sporting the five-year-old scars of the murderous race riots of 1917.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hanging Curve to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also the list of reviews from http://www.kensingtonbooks.com/book.aspx/22738^WebCite:
Praise for the Mickey Rawlings Baseball Mysteries
1. "Full of life." --The New York Times Book Review on Hanging Curve
2. "A richly atmospheric journey through time." --Booklist on Hanging Curve
3. "A perfect book for the rain delay. . .a winner!" --USA Today on Murder at Fenway Park
4. "Delightful. . .mixing suspense, period detail that will leave readers eager for subsequent innings." --Publishers Weekly on Murder at Fenway Park
The USA Today and Publishers Weekly sources here are about a different book, but The New York Times Book Review and Booklist are about this book. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In total, there are at least four reviews about this book: The New York Times Book Review, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep per sources.--Antigng (talk) 15:23, 20 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, Antigng (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Multiple reviews clearly satisfying NBOOK. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:46, 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's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Namibia relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. no embassies, agreements or significant trade. Even the Greek foreign affairs website says the extent of relations is a few scholarships. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal discussion in reliable secondary sources, as far as I can tell. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 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 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaşar Çınar[edit]

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

Deleted PROD but notablity as a boxing referee not established. Passing acknowledgments as the reference in a few bouts does not indicate notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The only 3 English sources refer to his penalizing a fighter at the 2014 Commonwealth Games for repeatedly losing his gumshield. That would seem to fall under WP:BLP1E. The other two sources are in Turkish--one to a page my computer said no longer exists and one that merely mentioned he'd been selected to referee at the 2012 Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage except for that one fight. Seems like WP:BLP1E and simply being an official at the Olympic Games is not enough to grant notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG.24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:48, 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 keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Purgatory[edit]

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

Non notable future film. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few reproductions of routine announcements. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, yeah, pretty much. But anything with that cast is going to get a substantial amount of coverage, even if it is mostly routine. I did find two interviews: [31] and [32]. Maybe someone else can find better than that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elucidate a bit more? Did you find more sources? It'd be useful to see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC) edit: Ah, I see you added a few sources to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Filming has been confirmed and due diligence shows the film topic as meeting WP:GNG. You simply may have missed these in your own searches, nominator. Kudos to Lady Lotus. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, reliable sources found to assert notability, such as [33]. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 10:26, 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 keep. Nakon 03:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mint.com[edit]

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

I've been prodding a bunch of Yellow Pages spam under the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. ". This one seems borderline and I'd like a 2nd opinion. It won Webby 2009 (other awards seem spammy, a bunch of Top 50, blah blah). Some passing coverage in mainstream media - nothing dedictated, again - Top 50 in Time, Top 25 in PC World, etc. Passing mention in a NYT article. One article about it in CNN Money. Personally I think it all boils down to whether winning Webby Award is sufficient. Now, Webby gives a lot of awards every year, and whatever mint want, is not even on in our incomplete 2009 Webby Awards. So I'd vote delete (hence, this nomination here), but since I been prodding a lot of those spam pages, I may be feeling a bit too deletionist. So, once again - second opinions welcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is not about the Webby Awards at all. This has received a heck of a lot more than a passing mention in the NYTimes:

3/5/08 "For Mint.com, More Money in the Bank"
8/14/09 "Mint.com, a Finance Site, Raises $14 Million"
08/24/09 "Mint C.E.O. Eyes Canada and Britain for Expansion"
9/15/09 "Intuit Buys Mint, a Web-Based Finance Competitor"
12/03/09 "A 20-Something Makes a Mint (and Sells It to Intuit)"
6/30/10 "Mint.com Expands Into Financial Planning Tools"
7/06/10 "Should You Trust Mint.com?"
01/05/2012 "Resolution: Become a Mint.com Power User"
12/03/12 "Nordstrom and GE Capital Block Mint.com Users

And that's just a selection. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Here's more sources: [34], [35], [36]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think Again Conclave[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable external secondary sources to prove notability of the article topic. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 09:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a nicely formatted piece of spammy add. Sorry, no coverage in any reliable sources. We are not a catalogue of web pages, or web video lecture/conferences/whatever that is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]| reply here .} 09:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection.The page was meant to be used as an educating tool for the people who want to attend the conclave or know about it's past history. I have no vested interest in the event and am merely trying to help others like me who were confused whether to attend the event or not. With regards to the correctness and the reliability of the sources, I am of the opinion that they are enough evidence to the existence of the Conclave. Also, the correctness of the data can also be verified at www.bits-apogee.org, which is the official website of the event. I think you were completely unjustified and hasty in your assessment calling the article a spammy piece of 'add'. Also, the essence of an encyclopedia is to make people aware about stuff which I think is exactly what I catered to. I have not attempted to misuse Wikipedia in any way. Also, if you say that organizations that organize lectures should not be allowed to have WIkipedia entries, I would say that would be unjust. By that logic, there should be no page of the TED Conferences, the Royal Society Lectures and others of the like. Please do consider my arguments seriously. (unsigned by anon)
DELETE per WP:ARTSPAM. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advice - What do you think I should do to improve the article? The language is pretty neutral and the references are true to the best of my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhairikfuletra (talk • contribs) 16:06, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Srihari[edit]

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

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

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

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

I've removed some spam, but he seems of dubious notability, and the references are very suspect even after I've removed links to Yellow pages and Wikipedia lists of Indian medical associations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all except one of the references were business directory listings or adverts for the person, and they have been removed. There is no indication that this person is notable as an actor or as a medical doctor. The Global Medical Association is perhaps a notable organisation, but it doesn't follow that its president is a notable person. And the fact that he is a member of the Indian Medical Association is not a claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. One reference about a movie he was in does not qualify as "significant coverage." I too once appeared in a commercial movie, but that doesn't make me notable enough for WP. I could find no information on the medical organization over which he presides. ubiquity (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: A new article about the same person has appeared at Dr sreeharii. ubiquity (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been CSD as A10.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was misplace at WP:REFUND:

r .srihari is president of global medical association. nearly 40,000 doctors are participating in this association, he is also member of indian medical association,2,50,000 doctors of india participating in this associations. wikipedia articles clearly states the importence of indian medical association and global medical association. so the article y.srihari is good . so i am requesting you dont delate it.............................naaga -115.241.109.31 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

dr y,srihari is member of indian medical association,2,50,000 doctors participating in this association,wikipedia article confirms this. so this article is nice, .....mani

--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it surprising that an organisation claiming 40,000 members seems to have no internet footprint whatsoever Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I left a note at the article's talk page asking for verification of some of these claims, in the hopes that one such source would enable the tracking down of other sources. No reply thus far, however, and I had a great deal of difficulty finding sources that did much more than verify that Srihiari exists. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/FYI: I have requested semi-protection of the article - not because of all the sock/meatpuppetry that is obviously going on there, but the AfD template has been removed by six different IPs at this point and that's simply disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article does not demonstrate that the subject meets criteria for notability as set out in WP:GNG. The lack of reliable sources is a real problem. As pointed out already, being a member of a professional association is not in itself notable. I haven't come across the Global Medical Association. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent lack of notability (even for the org), not to mention the number of accounts apparently dedicated to telling us that this is a "nice article". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article doesn't seem to demonstrate notability in reliable sources. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: someone has written an article for Global medical association, which I have tagged for WP:A7 because they do not assert anything notable about the organization, beyond its existence, and because, of the three references given, one does not mention the subject (being only a transcript of the statute under which they claim it is registered), one is a bad link, and the third does not appear to mention the subject (I can't tell for sure, as it's written in a language I can't read and is image-only so I cannot apply a translator). GMA still eludes searches under its English name. ubiquity (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete; -dr y.srihari article is very good,because it is related to doctors who are saving people lifes. dr y.srihari is famous doctor of india , and also his movie o manasa preminchake is very famous and super hit, he is very famous in india ....thanking you sir divya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.63.142.126 (talk • contribs) — 101.63.142.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
DONT Delete - he is a notable doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangeetha88 (talk • contribs) — Sangeetha88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (UTC)
DONT Delete - he is an expert doctor in obesity health problmes, present worlds major problem is obesity ,so the article is good...thanking you sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by agginoormani12 (talk • contribs) — agginoormani12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

GOOD ARTICLE -......RAJANI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.61.192 (talk • contribs)

Comment OK, the sock puppets/meatpuppets/Single-purpose accounts have found their way here now, with the usual spamming but failure to address the issues. All the credible opinions are to delete, isn't it about time to put this out of its misery? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. To put it bluntly, the only people who disagree with deletion are socks/meatpuppets. It's been over a week. Someone should close this. Discant X 08:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DONT Delete - he is a notable doctor,especially for obesity problems, , i wrote some articles in wikipeida,thanking you jimfbleak sir.i am so thank full to you sir,— Preceding unsigned comment added by ydsameeksh (talk • contribs) — ydsameeksh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: The actual poster of the previous was User:115.241.70.78 who signed it "ydsameeksh". I have counted 20 SPA accounts and 17 different IPs who have posted to the article, the article's talk page, WP:REFUND, and now this AfD discussion. It is patently obvious that many, if not all, of them are the same person. Is there any point in a SPI, or should we simply wait for the inevitable deletion of the article and hope that they won't continue the disruption afterwards? --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might not hurt to open one in case any of them do return and cause disruptions. Plus that way there's a more official record of it in case this needs to be cited if there are problems down the road. Then again, it may just be a waste of time. Discant X 11:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I don't suppose it can hurt. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nsmutte. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM DR laxman ,A MEDICAL DOCTOR, I AM NOT AN EDITER ,I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT PAGES, BUT TODAY AT INTERNET SEARCH,i FOUND dr y.srihari article in worlds no one, top website wikipedia, am very happy by seeing this article....thanking you sir115.244.233.245 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.244.233.245 (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC) — 115.244.233.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you bonadea sir ,and DiscantX sir.....ydsmeeksh( I CREATED SOME SUCCESSFULL ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA SINCE ONE YEAR) Respected sir, i am dr ydsameeksh, a medical doctor , andhra pradesh , india . i wrote an article "list of indian doctors associations" one year back , it is success full aticle in wikipedia , from last one year , many edits follows this article.one thing i want to say sir,on 26 th april 2014 i wrote this article. i know some knowlege about this doctors associtions, dr y.srihari is president of global medical association , and member of indian medical association.now i got full information on global medical association , it was registerd in visakhaptanam subregistrar office,governoment of andhra pradesh , under society registration act no 35 of 2001 , registration number is 187/2012 , this government registrar website is http://registration.ap.gov.in/ . In andhra pradesh the language is Telugu , this news published in many telugu news papers , but that new may not available in internet ,because due to language problem, but the information of global medical associaiton can get from above government website and also some other websites . one thing i want to say sir , wikipedia is wonderfull website , it is wonder of the world, our doctors forget medical books to get reference, because most reliable information can get in wikipedia medical articles. We are so wonder about the reliablity even drugs dosage , treatments.Global medical association doctors watching this dr srihari article very interestingly , we are all waiting for doctors success.....thanking you sir , i dont know the reason ,some one deleted "global medical association" words form my above said article "list of indian doctors associations" . this words stay in that article since one year.....thanking you sir... my id is ydsameekshYdsameeksh (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC) — Ydsameeksh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plants and Animals of India[edit]

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

Is a WP:OR and WP:CFORK. Do not see anything worth saving as they are already mentioned in the main articles Flora of India and Fauna of India. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing is there in the article. It is purely WP:OR with WP:Unreferenced.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unwanted essay and fork. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fork of two different articles. నిజానికి (talk) 16:02, 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. I'm withdrawing this, and since there is no delete !vote, I'm closing as keep. It can always be merged after discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Balch Library[edit]

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

Small town library of no historic importance. No third party references. As a librarian myself, I do not like to nominate library articles for deletion, but including branch libraries (unless they are not in an historic building is usually excessive. ) This was part of a university project. They should have had better advice about what topics were acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misapprehension Hi DGG, you seem to be operating under the misapprehension that this is a small-town lending library with a nice background story and a special collections dept. I followed that assumption at first, but it seems to be a dedicated research and archive library, so, while I actually suspect that many small town libraries merit pages on Wikipedia - and I gather that you don't - I do think that we can agree to assess the notability of this one by a different standard. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – To Leesburg, Virginia#Education and public services, including the photo. The last time I !voted to delete the small-town fire department, but that ended up as merge, so this time I'll try merge. Also it has a collection of archive materials related to the Civil War and the Underground Railroad [37]. This story from the Washington Post is about a monograph on James Monroe's slaves, published by the library, and there are several more from an oral history project in Google Books. Maybe not enough for a separate article, but worth merging. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a the 'reliable' source @Margin1522: mentioned about the libraries published research.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both notable and referenced with reliable sources. Please note that the article only had 2 references when it was nominated. It has been expanded and referenced significantly since its nomination. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named after notable scholar. Charming (my personal opinion), free-standing building designed by a notable architect. Library has an endowment. Has a Friends of... committee. Plenitude of scholarly references to use of works found there. Oh, and I just found that it won an architectural prize for a 2003 addition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a contributing property to a historic district. Ironically, the article about the library contains more information than the article about the parent historic district, although I've come to expect such articles. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If members of a university should want to write about a library, this seems a excellent scholarly topic for us to support. WP:N is just a guideline, not a hard rule, and so there's no necessity to disrupt this activity and there's a superior policy which suggests that we should consider the higher good. In any case, I had no difficulty finding more substantial sources about the library, which no-one seems to have considered yet and so, per our editing policy, we should continue to develop the topic further using them:

The Thomas Balch Library Mural
Thomas Balch Library: A Monument to the Father of International Arbitration
Thomas Balch Library Historic Newspapers Collection

Andrew D. (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reply:
The 3 sources listed above are pamphlets published by the library, not substantial or independent sources. Similarly, the other sources added are trivial mentions.
The basis of WP:N is the policy, NOT DIRECTORY, which is the reason we do not cover all local institutions. IAR to avoid the unduly literal specifics of the GNG is a good thing; IAR to make us into a directory is can destroy the encyclopedia. For non-notable organizations, their page on the web meets their need, and the need of the public.
For people who want to write about libraries, decisions here have general held that city or country libraries are notable, not branch or town libraries. That leaves a few thousand good article topics available.
Most buildings building in a historic district are contributing properties. This includes, for example , every house on my block.
Similarly for architects:there are a very few famous architects whose every building is notable. This is not the case for most architects, any more than every book is notable for most writers I see the architect listed has notable works, but not this one. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is more of a stylistic policy, saying that we shouldn't have phone numbers, like the yellow pages; prices, like a commercial catalogue; or schedules, like a programme guide. We have none of those things here and, even if we did, it wouldn't be a reason to delete, as we could just take them out but leave the other content, per our editing policy. The main point of WP:N is that we need reliable sources so that the content can be verified while avoiding original research. I consider that the sources available are quite reasonable for this purpose. I doubt that any readers will be surprised by the presence of this article, nor consider that its deletion would improve our coverage. The idea that having such articles will destroy the encyclopedia seems to be absurd hyperbole. Andrew D. (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am part of the reason this article was submitted. I teach a course in library history and have been proud that students are working to expand library entries. I am not sure how I might have limited the options and provided better advice and it seems to me that public libraries are very important in their given communities for different reasons and different times. It is very difficult to anticipate that this or that community is unimportant or have a guideline for doing so. I am thinking of a modest library funded by an African-American community pre-segregation that is now a true branch of a larger system but it not architecturally a standout. Yet it is the heart of its community. I will work to give better advice, but I do think that encouraging librarians to participate in Wikipedia is a positive.Kmccook (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting article about a public library that serves both a small community and as a research site for the underground railroad, something that is rare. The building is historic and has won an award as a prime example of a Waddy Woods building built in the Greek revivalist tradition. The only reason I see mentioned for its possible deletion under Wikipedia's deletion policy is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." Reviewing the notability guideline, it is clear that there is verifiable information and secondary sources. There are 14 sources, of which only 2 are arguably not secondary. This article meets the notability guidelines as defined. In addition, it fits in nicely with several library related guidelines as shown.Petercannon usf (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This library was designed by a notable architect, is the winner of a design award, is in a historic district, is the site of a research center on an important historic topic, and was a lending library at a time when most others were no longer so. Also, the number of sources included in this article has been greatly expanded. User:James E. Scholz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient secondary sources to establish notability. Clearly more significant than a random branch library, plus a structure from a notable architect. Gamaliel (talk) 22:48, 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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Rai Pathaje[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The guy spells his first name Santhosh but we spelled it Santosh. There are only two GHits under the first spelling, while the couple of thousand hits under the latter are almost entirely mirrors of our content in one form or another. The films themselves are barely notable and the two that he directed were flops, so there isn't really much scope for a redirect. I think this might be in part a self-promotion effort. Sitush (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "Santosh Rai Pathaje" is the correct name and he is not that notable. నిజానికి (talk) 15:54, 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. If anyone would like to see the deleted content in order to improve the Wiktionary article on "Shackle" please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shackle (unit)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term "shackle" was used -- this site [38] gives a plausible description, listing two different lengths. It should be mentioned in the article fathom. There is no content here worth merging as such, but there should be a dab for "shackle" with a link. I am desperately busy at the moment, or I would do this, but can I suggest that the way to get rid of worthless Cardarelli articles is to do the tidying up first, so the article is clearly not needed, then AfD. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted: I will do my best from now on to add relevant dab's, etc. before nominating for AfD. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to add a dab at Shackle (disambiguation), but it is already there, and already links to fathom. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And definition is now merged to fathom. This should completely eliminate any need for this article. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and not dictionary. There is insufficient encyclopedic information to justify an article, and the mention at Fathom#Line length (thanks War wizard90), along with Shackle (disambiguation), mean that no redirect is needed. Apparently a shackle was a section of anchor chain of a certain length; these lengths were joined with shackles or swivels. Before 1949, the UK length was 12+1⁄2 fathoms (75 feet), and since 1949 it is 15 fathoms (90 feet). [39] + [40]. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the page https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shackle could absorb this sourced material just fine. --Gaff (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This unit is verifiable, but there isn't enough sourcing out there to pass notability thresholds. So a mention in fathom and a pointer in a DAB page for shackle seems due weight. There is nothing in the article worth saving. --Mark viking (talk) 20:32, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeBlock[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Article was tagged as A7, however A7 does not apply to products or services. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support iOS apps are not inherently notable. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable Deunanknute (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence provided or to be found to support notability. There may be a reason for this: article claims that it "has over 100 downloads". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:SPA article by User:Iancthompson on a game developed by one Ian Thompson. There appear to have been other similarly named games; I am seeing no evidence that this iOS game is notable. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Odd that CSD criteria are so specific, that there is a criteria for musical recordings, but not paintings, or books; one for companies, but not products. Either way, this fails GNG given no coverage and only ~ 100 downloads?! --Gaff (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A7 ought to apply to products especially to non notables ones like this, Anyway per everyone above cant find any evidence of notability so fails GNG .

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Brighouse (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sole claim to notability is membership of Blame (band), which was deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/Blame (band). No significant coverage online from WP:RS. Dai Pritchard (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a WP:HOAX as well. Not digging up any REAL sources at all. Just mentions on unreliable sources. Even if this is perchance a real musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Safiel (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a local news source that shows the band is real, but that now-deleted article was the only thing stopping me from !voting Delete last time, and if that's gone, I think this one will have to as well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 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 Convert to a WP:DABCONCEPT. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Commission[edit]

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

All the entries on this dab page are partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in a modified form: although partial title matches, any "National Commission" is likely to be referred to by just that name within its particular area ("the 1953 National Commission reported that ..."), so some sort of dab is useful. The bigger problem is that this is wildly incomplete. Another problem is that it doesn't identify the country for each entry. A reader may well be looking for a "National Commission" in country X, on topic Y for which they don't know the exact wording. A list which indicated the country and date of each commission would be a useful finding aid. Maybe it would be a list, or a set index, rather than a National Commission, but it would be useful. I've added a couple of "See also" links to the page, to help in the interim. PamD 11:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at starting a list (or is it a set index?): see User:PamD/List of National Commissions. I might add a sort key so it can sort on the actual topic words. For the moment I'm assembling it in A-Z order, starting with the listing from {{look from}}, and will then add the others from {{in title}}. Any comments welcome on its talk page.

I suggest that we strip the dab page down to the two links currently in "See also", because it so misleadingly incomplete. If a near-complete list, such as that I'm working on, is created, then it might be appropriate either for "National Commission" to redirect to that list, or for the mini-dab page to include a link to the list. PamD 15:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Renaming/making it a list gets around my partial title match objections. Just so it isn't a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic example of a partial title match. I don't see a need/use for a disambiguation or list of this type because when anyone says "national commission" by itself, there is normally context. Tavix | Talk 23:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Perhaps PamD can have her work done quickly and then this can be deleted. Otherwise, more input is welcomed. JodyB_talk 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JodyB_talk 00:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a WP:DABCONCEPT page. What is a "National Commission"? It almost always seems to be a body assembled at the national level to address a particular issue. This is useless as a disambiguation page because there will be many non-notable or hypothetical national commissions addressing fleeting issues, and it is unlikely that we will ever have all of these, but we can still explain what the concept means. bd2412 T 02:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert either a DABCONCEPT or list/SIA. Widefox; talk 22:41, 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 // 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how an article can be written about a National Commission. There are simply too many country-specific examples and no unifying characteristics. That being said, I would keep it as a disambiguation page so that people can find the specific information they are looking for. However, if someone can convince me that an article can be written about national commissions in general, then I will change my vote to convert the article to a broad concept article. That being said, I would not want to delete the page if no conversion takes place.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:13, 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. Ged UK 13:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Touchtalent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Weakly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Undeclared paid editing contracted on f****r.com Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage offered as references is typical start-up propositional coverage, as was noted by User:TheLongTone in the AfD at end-2013. There is a seed funding announcement from mid 2014 [41] and a Highbeam search turns up one subsequent item in the Hindustan Times ([42], subscription reqd) - indeed three times - but it is unsigned and appears to be press-release-based. I am not seeing anything to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and no reason to overturn the January 2014 AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Still no credible evidence of notability: once again this article has been recreated by somebody who is one of the founders of theis company, whose only activity on WP is related to this company, eg spamlinking in other articles.14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep. While my reflexive instinct is to tag this with a G4 speedy due to questionable editor antics, in my opinion the company itself has quickly become a notable presence.[43][44] [45] - and those are just from a quick glance at the news link above. Pax 08:55, 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 // 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Pax, I would note that two of those three refs listed were already out there the last time this article went to AfD. At that time, the community decided to delete it. So there is only one new ref mentioned here, and that is a routine notice of seed funding--not something that would help for WP:CORPDEPTH. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With respect to the sources given by Pax, two don't look reliable, the third appears to be routine (e.g., reprinted press release.) CORPDEPTH appears lacking. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although the refs look like they aren't notable, it looks like people actually know about Touchtalent. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 02:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At first glance, there's a significant amount of media coverage, but going through it, it mostly appears to be brief mentions in half a sentence or press release stuff. If someone came up with more substantial mentions, I could change my mind on this one. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Joe Deckar Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and lacks Reliable references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:56, 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 keep. Ged UK 13:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia N73[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial product. Article contains lots of unsubstantiated but grand claims, and some speculation, too. No substantial third-party sources given; I couldn't find any after searching. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Notability is not temporary. Mikeblas (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Here is a notability generating link: 1. Also, and I say this in good humor, while clearly WP can be a grand encyclopedia many of it's side passages are filled with extensive catalogs. Issues regarding product puffery can be addessed with editing. —Noah 07:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The offered story is about Nokia X-series phones. The N73 is a specific N-series phone, and only incidentally covered. It therefore fails the "significant coverage" requirement to demonstrate notability. Is your other point that "yeah, there are lots of catalogs, so why bother fixing this article?" -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To put things in context, my original !vote was "I know you are not supposed to do this in an AfD but... wouldn't it be pretty if all these links were blue." Parts of wikipedia are beutifully well-sourced articles about important subjects and parts of it are lists of 1000s of barely notable movies, anime characters, and cell phones. I normally avoid this line of reasoning 'cause it's basically WP:OTHER... in this case it just felt right to do so. OTOH, the phone appears to me to be notable, we can source the specs in a way that isn't making grand claims, and I'm sure there are reviews in old paper magazines that haven't yet been digitized by google. —Noah 14:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Salzman, your comment made me think of the image I've added to the right :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 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! 00:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources on Google News [46], (My laptop's being an arse so can't list every cite there), They're not perfect but they're better than nothing, Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This source and this translated source indicates that there is somehow a second life in use of this phone, at least in internationally. The rest of the phones in the series somehow have articles, so if this one gets deleted, by definition the rest need to go as well. The article is fine, but is very technical and detailed. It needs, at the most, a good edit down. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:28, 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. Ged UK 13:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Havi Ibrahim[edit]

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

Okay so the article did have sources but they were either: unreliable, spam or had nothing to do with him. Not sure about notability either. Wgolf (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 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, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Besides the lack of reliable sources, I note the lack of sense. How is a person who lived in Britain for 13 years, was not born there, and no longer lives there, British? Bullocks. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps through this? In either case the article doesn't assert that he is British and doesn't say that he no longer lives in Britain. Fuebaey (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. There are three local sources in the article and I haven't been able to locate any other reliable ones. Of those references, there's a small blip of coverage about a 2009 animated film The Legend of Kawa the Blacksmith which briefly mentions Ibrahim as a co-creator but I don't think that's enough. The page creator has a copy of this article as their userpage so userfying is not necessary. Fuebaey (talk) 21:31, 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. Ged UK 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oana Botez[edit]

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

The sources for this one can be divided into three categories:

Passing mentions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

Cast lists: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8

Publicity blurbs written by, respectively, an employer and two organizations that gave the subject money: 1, 2, 3

In other words, there is zero indication that this individual has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", as required by WP:BASIC, or that any other biographical notability criteria are met. Hence, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Biruitorul, I think you missed some more substantive articles. I ran a news search, and came up with "Oana Botez’s fun, attractive paisley-patterned costumes..." Bston Globe [47], "Changing Oana Botez's smart and colorful costumes in the blink of an eye as they ..." Huff Post [48], NYTimes "The shipwrecked elder royals (richly dressed by Oana Botez..." NYTimes [49] She gets press, What Designers Across the Country Are Looking Forward To This Season [50] Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BASIC tells "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and we do have multiple reliable sources speaking toward her costume works in a more-than-trivial manner even if not substantively. They've taken note. We can too. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very same guideline goes on to say: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Now, I've pulled out the mentions from the New York Times (for brevity, and because it's the most prominent newspaper among all those quoted) so we can see just what we're talking about:
sly costuming (courtesy of Oana Botez)
The coolly urbane costumes (by Oana Botez-Ban) mix natty suits and woven tunics, with a few deft, outré touches.
Oana Botez-Ban’s costumes for the shipwrecked Italians are glossy period suits, complete with ruffs, while Prospero and Miranda wear simple, wheat-colored linens.
a costume by Oana Botez that speaks the postmodern language of space alien couture
Oana Botez, the costume designer, has a flair for mixing paisley patterns; her backless jumpsuits for the women are divine.
richly dressed by Oana Botez
Oana Botez, the costume designer, dresses the Greeks in summer suits and the Amazons in cocktail attire, though Penthesilea’s black leather trousers might be too sporty for some soirees.
Oana Botez-Ban designed the handsome costumes.
the dancers wore sculptural layers of purple by Oana Botez-Ban.... Ms. Botez-Ban’s colorful cloaks
Oana Botez-Ban’s crinkled metallic-green costumes — each cinched at the waist by a black corset
Oana Botez-Ban’s gorgeous, voluminous and strange formalwear
the spot-on costumes, by Oana Botez, evoke the styles of the late 1970s — halter tops and flared-leg, high-waisted pants

That strikes me as archetypally trivial—essentially a name and an adjective/adverb or two. We need non-trivial coverage; we need some kind of substantive mention, and we have yet to see it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I need to disagree, specially as the guideline you quote specifically instructs that while a substantial mention is nice, substantial coverage is NOT a guideline requirement. That her work as a costume designer has received specific mention and note in multiple reliable sources makes it slightly more-than-trivial than you might declare, no matter what anyone might personally feel about costume designer as a career. Thanks though. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's a blatant red herring, since I never commented on the career of costume designer. For instance, I doubt anyone would claim Edith Head isn't notable — after all, entire books are devoted to her.
But back to the main issue. Substantial depth of coverage isn't necessary, but "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". There's substantial depth, there's trivia, and there's an in-between. Mentions of this individual all fall squarely into the trivial. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not state that being a costume designer was inherently non-notable, but we are not discussing the notable Edith Head... nor the notable Marilyn Vance. I appreciate you finally agreeing that "substantial depth of coverage isn't necessary" even after contrarily asserting a few times earlier above that "we needed" it. Apart from the verifiability of her body of work to meet WP:CREATIVE, I again stand behind my opinion, that her work has itself drawn the attention of reliable sources (albeit briefly) in a more-than-trivial manner. More, within her field she has received recognition by her peers by being nominated for The Henry Hewes Design Awards and winning The Barrymore Award and Drammy Award to meet WP:ANYBIO. I realize I should have probably led with that far better reason to keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need sources to write an encyclopedic article about the subject, which meets our major content policies. Since all content in this article can be verified by reliable sources, and it reflects a neutral point of view, I see no point in deleting it.--Antigng (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Terrible, terribe article, reads like self-promotion. However, there is this Award [51], there are several awards, and write-ups by lots of reputable theaters. Moreover, some of the press coverage is more than just cursory , here the NYTimes [52] writes "Oana Botez, the costume designer, has a flair for mixing paisley patterns; her backless jumpsuits for the women are divine."E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:13, 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 LGBT rights in Louisiana. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Electorate of Gays And Lesbians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to be a notable advocacy organization. Lawsuits they have filed have gotten press, but nothing about the group appears to be available. Originally nominated for deletion some time ago, and sources were found to be almost entirely about press releases or side mentions, including socking activity, and ended up being a non-admin closure. I've seen nothing to change my mind at this point about the notability of this group per our retention standards. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I encourage everyone to read the prior deletion debate before responding. I identified many sources at that time, some hidden behind pay walls. In the end, six editors favored keeping the article, and only the nominator favored deletion. This is an article about a historical topic with no promotional or advertising concerns. The non-administrative closure was entirely appropriate since consensus was crystal clear, so mentioning the closure contributes nothing to this debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted when you offered some examples, none of them were sources about the subject. You opted not to respond further when that protest was raised, would you care to explain why PR blasts and articles not about the subject should confer notability in this instance? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on result of first AFD. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LGBT rights in Louisiana. The significant coverage simply isn't present - they've accomplished some things, but they don't get covered as an organization. "A representative from LEGAL said..." as a pull-quote in an article on some LGBT rights development is not coverage of LEGAL. Since lawsuits are their main activity, significant cases in which they were involved are or could be covered in their state's article. BTW, I looked at the sources provided in the last AFD and also did searches of my own; the sources are trivial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Or just delete (group appears to be long defunct anyway given ancient website with a WayBackMachine archived AOL address from 1998). Pax 08:33, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 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. Nakon 03:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dida Sportswear[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Also, WP:INHERITORG fail. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Appears to be failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This formerly little-known company has received sufficient RS (much of it descendant from their winning the bid to supply India's Olympic uniforms -- a savvy marketing coup on their part given that country's burgeoning population).[53] [54] Pax 13:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORG disqualify.-- Mahensingha _{(Talk) "Thanx n Regards"} 15:53, 24 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 // 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Indian Express source has some depth, and if we had two like it this would be a weak keep, but I don't believe the Times of India source does, and I was strongly underwhelmed by what else I could find. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:ORG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:08, 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 no consensus. Ged UK 13:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Framework[edit]

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

This article (and a related one, John Slegers, that I redirected here) seem to have been pulled apart, but fundamentally there just doesn't appear to be the required coverage in sources to be able to write a decent article on this. I found one source that mentioned it in relation to the Blackberry, but that was only a fleeting mention. There doesn't seem to be much else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 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, Missvain (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Seem to meet general notability guidelines for websites, more so than most websites on Wikipedia in my opinion. Royal Mate1 20:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [55] and [56] (both already referenced in the article) seem to contain the coverage the nom is looking for. ~KvnG 05:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those both look like self-published sources. Anyone can start a website and state a positive or negative opinion about anything - there's no indication that somebody with an impartial view decided it was of any importance. I take a laxer approach to self-published sources than some, for example this site is in my view acceptable for citing serial numbers and content of singles and LPs, but even then, I could not use that source to demonstrate notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not personal blogs and the postings are attributed, not posted by readers; Not clearly WP:SPS in my book. Sources like these is how information now spreads on fast-moving tech topics like this. ~KvnG 21:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Geekz site appears to try and be a comprehensive site, but I can't see any obvious source from outside the development community that treats it as important as reliable. Furthermore, one source is just a roundabout of CSS Frameworks, devoting a mere paragraph to it among several others. Since code geekz appears to be trying to documenting everything, irrespective of whether or not the wider non-developer world claims any importance over it, I don't think we would be able to prove any notability from it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we need to find sources from "outside the development community?" I consider a paragraph in a roundup from a WP:RS to be WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage. I don't understand what disqualifies this. I don't understand what you find in WP:RS that disqualifies Codegeekz. ~KvnG 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made any edits to the article in the two weeks the AfD has been left open. Therefore I assume you are more interested in arguing than improving articles. Goodbye. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Ritchie333 comments about sources above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Softpedia and bin press are download sites and thus not independent. The rest of the references provided in article are from the developers, blogs, or incidental mentions. The codegeekz.com ref above is a borderline ref, but on its own insufficient to establish notability even if it were solid WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 20:17, 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.