Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	1 March >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Plague[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I can't find any sources that assert the book's notability. ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note on the page's 'talk' tab, but could someone please explain in plain English what exactly this 'notability' or lack thereof actually entails? I'm not sure I get it. Surely the fact that the book exists is enough to gain it inclusion in an encyclopaedia...? I must confess to not really understanding Wikipedia at all and how it works... Paulfny (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Paulfny. When other Wikipedia editors say that your article does not meet the notability guidelines, it means that they don't think that your topic is important enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it. Click on this link for more information about notability - WP:N

Bfpage |leave a message 01:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this particular case, no significant reviews cited means a "no go" on notability. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Someone with no COI needs to establish notability or this article should go. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 01:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK found only 1 usable ref^[1]Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, it looks like there aren't any professional reviews from reliable sources. The story in a local newspaper is something, but it's certainly not enough to demonstrate notability by itself. If the book gets reviewed at Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, or other horror-themed sites, it can be recreated. Self-published blogs really aren't good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Yeovil-born author Rich Hawkins marks release of debut horror novel The Last Plague". www.westerngazette.co.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2015.

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 19:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avantika Khattri[edit]

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

Unotable actress with just 2 roles so far. Too soon. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the roles are notable...Cpavlankar (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Only reliable source I can find is this.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 08:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep, reliable source, can read in this...she has done good roles and notable this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpavlankar (talk • contribs) 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. A single interview isn't enough. -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~comment try and google her name to find any further coverage...am sure there would be enough coverage for her to qualify for the same as both her movies is a notable movie in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpavlankar (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I did google her name, and did not find further coverage. If you are sure there is more coverage, then you will need to present it. -- 12:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. If and when substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources can be found, then we should have this article. But not until then. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:45, 7 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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Female Pop Charts[edit]

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

The "World Female Pop Charts" is a Facebook page and the only reference to it I can find is here on Wikipedia; there are certainly none in reliable sources that assert notability or lend any credibility to the article content. The article should be speedily deleted as non-notable web content. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information on this subject save for facebook.

Bfpage |leave a message 19:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Honestly, I think this would be a great candidate for WP:CSD#A7 as a personal webpage. No independent sources, with references that link back to the same Facebook group. Fuebaey (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no sources covering this at all. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 6 March 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. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FM Reset[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. I can only find one newspaper source, http://www.intelligencer.ca/2014/07/28/overwhelming-support-for-thomas-martin but that is from a newspaper in the band's hometown of Belleville, Ontario. Furthermore, it's only a passing mention. Does not seem to be notable. ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The band has toured throughout Ontario and in Nashville. They have opened live for Gob at the Canadian Independent Music Festival; They are becoming very notable. Watchthemrise (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly a case of WP:TOO SOON. Living on the west coast of Canada, but very much into Christian music, I have not heard of this band. I can't find any sources to support notability either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ridiculous, not even close. Fairly new band, so could establish notability in future, but inclusion at this point is just advertising. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sacred Scriptures of Monikut[edit]

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

Fairly garbled, and no assertion of notability. Performer doesn't have an article, but since it's been previously WP:PRODded, not eligible for speedy. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. I see why it wasn't eligible for CSD now. :) BenLinus 1214^talk 22:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am fairly shocked that it didn't get deleted during the PROD. The subject of this article isn't even notable enough to be in a garage sale. Jcmcc450 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Goodwin[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. A teenager who has done some charity fundraising, along with others, and recieved minor media attention for it. Few of the independent sources cite discuss the subject of the article himself in any depth. The only significant coverage is a local online newspaper story about him being nominated for London Young Person of the Year - which he evidently didn't win. As far as I can tell, nominations are open to anyone to submit, making nominations of questionable note. [1]. If the article isn't an autobiography, it has been written by someone closely associated with the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page has a huge significance. Over 80,000 people follow this chap on Twitter and search up information about him daily. He was a competitive swimmer who competed nationally and has opened his own charity at the age of just 16. He was amongst the youngest people to swim the English Channel at just 15. Kieran Goodwin is known throughout many countries throughout the world which makes this article important for people to find information regarding him on. Kieran Goodwin is also a blogger for the world renowned Huffington Post. I believe you have missed many details of Kieran Goodwin in your statement to deleting this page which I understand is very unfair. Dragonfly009 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just won the Wikipedia bullshit of the day award. Wikipedia discussions regarding notability are based around evidence from published reliable sources, and not on unsupported claims of world renown coming from contributors who's entire editing history consists of promotion of this individual and related charity fund-raising teams. So he writes a blog for the (UK) Huff Post does he? So do lots of people - we don't however cite them as evidence of notability, which requires in-depth coverage in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it should be noted that the Channel swim was as part of a relay - something which the article failed to point out. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should be kept as it gives good factual information regarding the notable person. I believe deleting the page will only equal to people not finding the information they wish to see regarding this person. I think his work is notable. Support009 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a sock of Dragonfly009. Mike V • Talk 01:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this is not a vote, and that new accounts who's sole edits are 'keep's for articles entirely unsupported by evidence are unlikely to be taken into consideration when closing. Instead, the matters under consideration are the evidence in independent published sources, and Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are doing is wrong, that's all. The article deserves to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly009 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite frankly exactly per nomination. To editors Dragonfly009 and Support009: Could you please take a look at User:DragonflySixtyseven/First-timer? It was written in response to another discussion but I feel it applies here. Best, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – seems to fail GNG right now. Might not in the future, but right now I don't think this subject is worthy of an article. T C N7JM 09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although my article does not meet the WP:GNG I believe it has great potential for people who research him, and I can assure everyone on here that many people do look him up. In creating Kieran Goodwin I thought I would be helping many people gather all the information they require from him. I know of many people who have searched him up and found the references and information extremely useful. Dragonfly009 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assurance is neither necessary, nor apparently correct - the page view statistics are available for all to see. [3] And given that you have agreed that the subject does not meet Wikipedia policy requirements regarding notability, there is no point whatsoever in calling for the article to be kept. It isn't going to happen. And please stop pretending you aren't Goodwin - you have already self-identified by posting your personal email details while using another of your multiple accounts.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know 'AndyTheGrump' you come across as a nasty old man. I will delete the page now as to avoid this unnecessary argument and discussion. I really hope you live your life in sorrow. I am not 'Goodwin' for goodness sake and you should really get a life off of Wikipedia. Dragonfly009 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you come across as an egotistical brat, Kieran - but neither is relevant to this discussion. Which will continue, since you are not in the position to personally delete the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, guys. Come on. Is this really necessary? T C N7JM 20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. But neither is relentless self-promotion, sockpuppetry and repetitive bullshit. The kid does good work for charity, along with his friends, and they should be commended for it. It doesn't however entitle him to mislead our readers with over-inflated claims about his own personal merits. He can (and does) use Facebook and Twitter for that, but this is an encyclopaedia, and our readers expect objectivity, not misleading promotional fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Special[edit]

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

Non-notable television show. Cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. What steps did you take to find references? I found these rather quickly:
http://torontoist.com/2011/02/todays_special_is_the_public_archive/
Fanfare - Volume 9, Issues 1-2 - Page 303 (https://books.google.ca/books?id=4pQ6AAAAMAAJ&q)
http://cinemacanada.athabascau.ca/index.php/cinema/article/viewFile/4010/4046

It also easily passes WP:TVSERIES. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 06:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It was a hugely well-known children's show in Canada that aired for 6 years. I found links that mention the show with little effort at the websites for The Toronto Star, Maclean's Magazine, and as expected, the TVOntario website. The lengthy amount of time that the show aired on TVOntario enables it to pass the standards of WP:TVSERIES easily. Drpickem (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing present in the article as written ain't great, admittedly, but the nominator clearly didn't try very hard to find sources beyond a cursory Google search — this is easily source-improvable, and passes WP:TVSERIES handily. And the standards for TV series are different from the standards for a BLP of an individual person; for an inanimate topic, it merely needs to be possible to improve the sourcing, which it is. I do agree with the nominator's parallel nom of the episode list, because it's not actually useful as constituted — but that's an entirely separate matter from whether we should have a base article about the series itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 6 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. Der yck C. 00:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gods of Antarctica[edit]

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

non-notable book by non-notable author (wiki page on him has been twice deleted, once speedily (A7) and once after this XFD discussion).

Initially it looks like there are many sources at the bottom of the page but the vast majority of them are the same article, which was drawn off PTI (an Indian newswire service) and republished on different sites. It is more of a "soft news" story than a discussion of the book - the focus is on the fact that a 13-year-old published a book, not on the book itself.

No reviews, no evidence that the book has been widely read.

The other sources are not really sources at all: links to the book's entry on google's books, the author's profile on goodreads, etc. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:Notability Certainly looks like a promotional effort. Makes claims like "in top 1000 on Amazon" without citing a source. 220 of ^Borg 08:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)u[reply]
Delete. As Fyddlesttix points out, it looks like it's sourced, but it isn't really. The aythor has been judged non-notable for Wikipedia, and so is the book. Bishonen | talk 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 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. Der yck C. 00:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Mez[edit]

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

Possibly unotable, unsourced blp. Surprisingly has been in a sandbox all these years till now it seems. Wgolf (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Seems more promo imho, Anyway no evidence of notability, –Davey2010^Talk 21:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment-Interesting how this article has been edited for the past 5 years by different people yet has never became a actual article till now. Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Though he shows up in google, it's only various music-dump style pages that feature him. No news, no notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 7 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 05:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Auguste Désiré Filon[edit]

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

Cannot find WP:RS covering the subject. Just websites to purchase his ~~products~~ works and WP:MIRROR. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment what "products" is a 19th century French historian supposed to be peddling? Le petit fromage (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His works, then. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it detrimental to notability that an 19th century author would have his "works" listed in amongst antique book sales on the Internet. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can somebody find French sources? The last time I edited a French article, I was pilloried for my poor translation skills. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparently a prolific and widely known author from his period. This source calls him "notable for important works". He has an entry in the Encyclopedia Americana. Better known as Auguste Filon or Augustus Filon than under his full name, but the French National Library entry for him makes clear they are the same person. There appears to be a little more about him in this book but I can only see it in snippet view. I suspect there is more about him in French print sources that is not online. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am prepared to accept David Eppstein's view. His appearance in the Encyclopedia Americana implies notability in the view of its editors, which we should accept. Nevertheless this is only a stub and needs expanding. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. David Eppstein's comment makes good sense, though it seems a little strange that French wikipedia doesn't have an article on him. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 7 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 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brijendra Pratap Singh[edit]

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

PROD was removed. Despite the assertions on the talkpage it is almost inconceivable that this is not an autobiography. This notwithstanding, the subject of the article clearly does not meet WP:ANYBIO and the brief interview in Der Freitag does not amount to level of public exposure required for any kind of mention on Wikipedia. Equally, his connection with Save Women, Save India is irrelevant for the purposes of demonstrating his notability in this biographical article. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 18:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" The notability is not challenged as the person is known by more than thousands of people for his movement." 103.243.55.20 (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — 103.243.55.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - fails WP:42. The movement is notable, but notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The article should be kept as the movement inspiration and people associated to it has to be acknowledged so that people might get a suitable leadership. It's not about notabilitity, it's about erasing the polluted system and to provide it a face. The politicians are coloring it with their statements, we should avoid it by giving the right people his right place in present."103.243.55.20 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~" The article should be kept as the movement inspiration and people associated to it has to be acknowledged so that people might get~~I have moved the above text to where I believe the commenting IP wanted it. 220 of ^Borg 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above post is totally irrelevant. It suggests they are merely trying to promote the organisation. Highly POV "erasing the polluted system". etc 220 of ^Borg 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without more sources to prove WP:notability, this BLP should go--220 of ^Borg 08:03, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad road allahabad[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason given for the proposed deletion was No indication of Wikipedia:Notability. Just a road. (Article has been deleted before, as well). Since a contested PROD can't be reinstated, I figured I'd take this straight to AfD. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG as currently written. That doesn't mean that someone couldn't make a case for notability, but rather that no one has done so. Based on cursory web searches, I don't think anyone could. Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've redirected the page to List of streets and roads in Allahabad#Ahmad Road. Suggest this AfD be speedily closed. -Arb. (talk) 19:07, 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. Nakon 20:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jitter Clicking[edit]

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

Unsourced gaming phenomenon. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Glossary of video game terms. Pax 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, non-notable neologism. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per RichardOSmith above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Let's start with the head count: 5-3-1 in favor of "Delete" (the 1 being a "merge" suggestion). Not enough to matter, so let's look at the merits. On the merits, I don't see the argument for just throwing away this material as being clearly compelling or superior.

It is true that the term "Banglastan" is referenced a lot, and with a reasonable amount of supporting material (e.g., explaining what it is etc.) in a number of notable sources. And there's no strong policy-based arguments made for deleting the material considering it meets general notability. If it was up to me personally I'd recommend merging it Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, using it to expand the section "Bangladesh Period (1978–present)" which after all is just one paragraph. But there was only one "vote" for that so that's off the table IMO; I'm not going to supervote an outcome that was "voted" 8-1 against absent a very compelling argument. This is not to say an editor couldn't tag it for merging or just merge it and leave this article as a redirect, if they're so inclined and if no one obects. Herostratus (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banglastan[edit]

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

No detailed coverage of the term and the ideology. Just picked up some trivial mentions from some news and added in the article increase the size of it. The only considerable source ( ref 2) that has some detail about the ideology is fully based on a post of facebook. The user has misinterpreted many sources in many articles. This is not also aa different case. Rahat (Message) 17:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The usage of the term has been reported by the leading newspapers of Bangladesh. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: BengaliHindu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete A pretty wrong enterprise on part of the page creator. Just picked up some speculative news items to shape them into an article. ...their vision of Bangladesh as a Taliban state modeled on Pakistan or Afghanistan is a very big false and technically wrong claim which is simply not to be propagated using Wikipedia's platform. Statements like According the Facebook handle... testifies its frivolity. -AsceticRosé 01:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per AsceticRose.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Highly disputed" is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete misrepresentation of source, the idea of it heard from a facebook user thats all and another politician said it to hurt the opposition without any source. So the notion of this idea is imaginative unless it is proven. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from the numerous RS already present in the article, the term has sufficient usage. Pax 02:48, 27 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 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The article is full of synthesis and mostly talks about the activities of the right wing politics of Bangladesh rather than the term "Banglastan". I have also checked the sources, apart from the fact that many of them are wholly unreliable, they merely "uses" the term in their coverage on the right wing political activities in Bangladesh but don't show any anything "about" the term. Zayeem ^(talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. Not enough notability for a standalone article, but can be cited in the Jamaat page. The term has received coverage in several major newspapers.--203.112.78.254 (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik von Einsiedel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG under any of the purported categories given. As rhetor and philosopher, under WP:ACADEMIC he appears not to have secured a degree, further qualification being late discussions in his pub. As a restaurateur he "ran a pub" and "wanted to open a club, which would have been a success". Per WP:SPORTCRIT there is no indication of participation in major competition and the notability of the amateur sport club he founded is not established. As far as I can tell there is no article at the German Wikipedia giving additional support of notability, neither as an individual or in ventures in which he was involved. The edit summary removing my WP:PROD, by the page creator, that "The person is relevant as a grandgrandson of Otto von Bismarck, although he is perceived to appear as non-notable as philosopher, sportsman or restaurateur." does not pertain per WP:NOTINHERITED. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Claims of notability are for a university drop-out that ran a pub and played amateur futsal/football, that all fails WP:GNG. Having a great-great-grandfather isn't also a reason for notability (we all have eight of them). The author seems to have problems with WP:NPOV when it comes to articles about related people or himself. --Ben Ben (talk) 16:20, 22 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 17:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible to be notable while having done nothing of significance, under WP:GNG, and the Tagblatt article really does have non-trivial and reliably published coverage of the subject. But by itself I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to meet any notability standards, including GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:14, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzee Wittke[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references provided. The external link discusses the person in the article as well. There are plenty of results in a google or yahoo search. I also learned about this individual from a magazine that I found. It does deserve an entry even if at stub level for now. Further development will warrant more material added to the article.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how WP:BLP1E would apply (there's no event). But I can't find the coverage needed for WP:GNG. Maclean's did a feature on her but that's about it. The only other sources I can find are just rehashing the Maclean's piece. If she receives more coverage in the future, or if researchers publish research related to her then she may be notable at that point. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article under BLP1E because of the claim to notability: "a person who continued to have a six-month old body". An interesting case, I agree, but probably not enough to be a strong claim to notability. I do understand that there are references in the article, and I took that into account when nominating the article, but again, one event(?), or at the very least only a single claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still think it should be kept, could the article be saved for any future purposes? Like be unpublished and re-published when notable for others? That way we wouldn't loose any contributions added here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 17:55, 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, Nakon 03:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG [4][5][6][7]][8][9] - Not the most perfect of sources but notability is there, However I will say the article does need expanding imho. –Davey2010^Talk 23:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. This article definitely requires expansion. Perhaps you can use those sources you shared to expand it. --Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I don't like about this is that it's unduly invasive of her and her family's right to medical privacy. It's not as though this is a particularly important topic that we need to maintain an article about — if genuinely substantive importance were there, it would be possible to write a much longer, much more substantive, and much better sourced article than this. So yes, this essentially does fall under WP:BLP1E — the 1E being "was diagnosed with an unusual medical condition". There are a lot of topics (unelected candidates in elections, alleged but not convicted criminals, etc.) where the fact that sources are possible to locate is not, in and of itself, considered enough of a reason for us to keep an article about them — she's a low-profile person of little to no actual public prominence, so we have to give extra consideration to her privacy rights. And the fact that there's literally no possible category for her to be filed in besides her birth year and Category:Living people — "Canadian what-occupation"? "People from What City"? — doesn't convince me of her overriding notability either. So I have to come down on the delete side. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 27 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, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per sources. Bearcat raises a privacy issue which I would find compelling if her parents were shown not to be willing participants in the media coverage (in the understandable hope that the study and attention might benefit their child). A WP:BLP1E argument can be made that she is notable only for being born with her medical condition but, as the condition is not yet medically recognized, it is difficult to identify a merge target. We could possibly merge this biography to Brooke Greenberg#Comparable_cases, an earlier patient studied by Dr. Walker with the same condition. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that our standard of privacy is significantly higher than "media coverage exists, therefore privacy is no longer an issue". Most media is either locally-oriented or serves a specialized interest rather than a general readership, and will never be seen by anybody who isn't already looking for it — but Wikipedia is one of the most widely-read websites in the world, so an article on here is being spotlighted to an international audience in a way that completely dwarfs whatever loss of privacy resulted from the original media coverage. And furthermore, because Wikipedia can be edited by anybody, we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add inappropriate content to the article: we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add the Wittke family's home address and phone number; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever rewrite the article to describe Mackenzee as a "freaky alien monster"; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add unsourced personal criticism of how rude her father was to them at McDonald's last week; we can't guarantee that nobody will ever try to add unsourced speculation about what Mackenzee's medical condition might be; and on and so forth. So for all of those reasons, our standard of privacy is considerably stricter than "if media coverage exists, then the person is automatically fair game for Wikipedia coverage" — there are some classes of topic where, even if sourcing can be located, the presumption of privacy still requires us to leave them hidden in those sources and not cover them on here. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If privacy's the reason this article should be an issue, then that can go for just about every living biography on Wikipedia. Also if her parents allowed her to be photographed, her doctors to discuss, and herself be examined by medics, then they can toss out their privacy claim. My understanding is if you get enough media, academic/historic coverage or at least either of the two, you warrant a Wikipedia entry.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "person whom we should have an article about because public interest" and "person whom we should not have an article about because privacy" hinges on whether the topic is prominent enough a public figure that a reasonably broad readership can be expected to be able to monitor the article for potential policy violations and personal privacy issues. Barack Obama, for example, is a prominent and high-profile subject, in whose article any inappropriate content will get caught almost instantly because a lot of people read the article every day — whereas Wittke is a low-profile subject who might garner as few as ten readers or less per year, and thus any vandalism to her article could potentially stay there uncaught for months or even years because not enough people are seeing it in the first place to adequately control for that. That's the difference. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Chen[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOT YET (actors). Before being cast in Fresh Off the Boat, Ian only had two small guest appearances and got no recognitions for them, thus he does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Except for brief passing mentions in articles that focus mainly on the show or its other actors, I see no significant coverage in the entertainment industry or a big fan base for him, thus he does not meet WP:GNG at this point. We cannot assume that just because he is currently a series regular that he will continue acting and achieve fame later on, especially since the show is still very new. There have been many child actors who have left the industry and disappeared into thin air after just a few roles. Ian may or may not be one of them. If he does indeed become notable in the future, it would not be too hard to recreate or restore the article since it is practically blank at its current state. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not here to predict who will become stars, and who will not.--Theamazo (talk) 14:09, 22 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, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The actor has had only very minor roles in television, and has not made any major breakthroughs on these roles. I agree with the nominator that it's simply too soon to have an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:16, 7 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomers Comedy[edit]

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

No evidence found of independent, reliable coverage per WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, only University press-releases, affiliated or user-generated sites, and YouTube videos. One or more famous alumni does not grant notability, see WP:INHERITORG. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good sources. Simply an attempt to get free publicity here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 27 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, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Mathew[edit]

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

Lack of sourcing. It looks impressive as the article stands, but it's on shaky grounds (how important is his role? / how important is the organisation? / is the claim even true?) when you try to source it.

We work by independent third party sourcing, especially for BLPs, and this doesn't have them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject may meet NACADEMIC #3 criteria for being a fellow of Academy of Biomedical Scientists (FABMS); International Medical Sciences Academy (FIMSA); and of Indian Medical Sciences Academy (FAMS). -source. WP:INDAFD-sources. We may always remove unsourced claims from BLP articles and discuss other questionable stuffs on article's talk page. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) --[reply]

Subject meets NACADEMIC #2 & #6 -for heading highest level academic post at multiple major academic institution and winning a prestigious award. -Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University and DRDO Scientist of the Year award. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This assertion is disputed below. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Heh? What the heck! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Given that the first Google hit (and four of the top five hits) for "Academy of Biomedical Scientists" is this Wikipedia article, it seems dubious to me that it is a legitimate and notable scholarly organization, one in which membership is a high honor. Can you supply some evidence to the contrary? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: -It actually is, Indian Academy of Biomedical Sciences. I'm not sure if you are seeing the same search results. When I Google the term, I see this (may be Google search results are influenced by georgraphical location or one's own search history). Please {{ping}} me when you reply. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete or userify. While winning the "Scientist of the Year Award of DRDO" (sic) and other things Anupmehra mentions might qualify for notability under WP:PROF, there is no reference to verify these claim. As it stands, the article should be deleted as it fails wp:V. The only reference mentions him only as the chairman of a committee and does not support any of the other claims. If this is someone's area of interest, perhaps they could userify it instead and improve it. BakerStMD T|C 16:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakerstmd: -There are references to verify to those claims. -See, [10]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know, receiving a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level and holding a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society are Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@user:Anupmehra, looks like you've made some good edits to improve the article. I thus have changed my mind and think it should be kept and continue to be improved. BakerStMD T|C 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of claimed notability is probably not valid. Please have a look below to see if new findings affect your !vote. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: -I'm afraid you are either not aware of the guideline or having some mis-understanding, that I will attempt to clarify in short below to your comment. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of the guidelines – see below. Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The long list of dubious and poorly-sourced honors makes me suspicious that many of them are made up by the subject (see for instance my earlier comment re the "Academy of Biomedical Scientists", for which most web sources point back to the subject rather than giving any credibility to it as an independent organization. In the face of this sort of apparent self-promotion, even more than the usual case, we need independent sources for verifiability and as a way of sorting out the truly notable accomplishments (if they exist) from the dross. Without such sources, I think we have to delete this. The one source we have mentions the subject, and appears reliable and independent, but is not sufficient to cover most of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that there are not many independent sources, there are few that substantiate the claims of being a fellow of multiple highest and reputed national associations and being appointed highest level academic post at at least two reputed institutions such as, Chariman of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences -[11] and winning the highly prestigious academic award Scientist of the Year Award in 1994 -[12]. It is hard to believe that subject was not published in any newspapers, and scholarly journals and magazines for their these achievements (in particular Indian media). We are just having trouble finding them (One reason is that, Indian newspapers do not keep archive for publications before 2000. WP:INDAFD). For their achievements (even if we exclude those multiple associations' fellowship), they easily qualify for a Wikipedia article per NACADEMIC #2 & #6. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Chairman" implies he led the DRDO, but its own WP page says that it is administered by the Indian Ministry of Defense. Was Mathew part of the Ministry? Also, the organizations in which he's a fellow are not "highest and reputed national associations" – see below for proof. Agricola44 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Do you to discuss a thing at ten places on a single page? I've already answered to your queries below to your post. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I will answer your this particular question and ask you to continue below at one place. There is a post of Director at DRDO -source. User-generated contents are not considered a reliable sources, so does the Wikipedia. Please stop citing Wikipedia as a source, if you've none to prove your personal opinion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To all who !voted "keep", please consider the following findings. (1) Being a fellow of organizations listed in this article does not have the level of prestige you are assuming. If you examine, for example, the FABMS fellow application, you find that the eligibility requirements are minimal (must be a society member, must have done "research" for at least 15 years, must have a post-grad degree) and that applicants must pay a fee. Even assistant professors seem to be fellows of this society, which implies this "award" is nothing more than a pay-to-play CV puffer. (2) The research record of this individual is not at all consistent with the claims of offices held and awards received. While WoS does show 49 papers, they are not heavily cited: 25, 22, 18, 15, 13, 12, 9, 8 (h-index 8). These figures are characteristic of an average researcher. (3) There seems to be no such position as Chairman of the DRDO. Rather, this organization is administered by the Indian Ministry of Defense and is divided into "establishments" (i.e. laboratories). The subject appears to have been a director of one of these, i.e. a lab head, which, while important, is not notable per se. In summary, much of the claims seem to be WP:PUFF, which probably explains Anupmehra's conundrum of not being able to find independent documentation. The subject is clearly a part of the Indian research establishment, but does not seem to meet the WP inclusion guidelines in terms of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't accept original research, do you have a source for what all you have said in your comment?

Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University, etc. -are just more than ENOUGH to satisfy the NACADEMIC #6 guideline (the number 6)..

Again keep in mind that, I'm not trying to establish 'general' notability guideline for that you are seeking significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, but "NACADEMIC", that I'm trying to verify that subject meet the required standard. Anyway, the required criteria is that sources must "exist" not that they are "accessible" or "available" right about now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on those claiming notability, meaning it is you from whom WP does not accept original research. I do not need a "source" for the FABMS fellow application, I simply supplied it: and it plainly states the very minimal guidelines for "election" to fellow and the fact that the applicant must pay. I also supplied proof that entry-level assistant professors have been named fellows. These facts are very clear demonstration that FABMS does not carry much prestige i.e. WP:PROF c3 is not satisfied. As for "Director" (which is basically lab or perhaps division head), I agree that he probably has held these posts, but that is irrelevant because those appointments do not rise to notability per se under WP:PROF c6. There is a massive corpus of hundreds of AfDs that have established that lab heads, division heads, and such are not the highest-level post at an institution. That would have to be chancellor, president, perhaps provost, etc. As for his research, its impact clearly falls far short of WP:PROF c1, especially as it is in the high-citation field of medicine. What is very clear is that, like the supporting web-pages used as sources, this article is extremely puffed up. I'm sure Dr Mathew is a capable researcher, but he is not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Leave fellowship out. Answer How despite heading highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society doesn't make him notable per NACEDEMIC #6.

Quote from my previous comment : Director of DRDO, Director of Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences, Director of Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory, Dean of VIT University. I've provided sources. I'm asking you to prove your baseless opinion, better I say, funny, that, DRDO Scientist of the Year Award is an insignificant recognition.

A formal note : Your lengthy and meaningless comments have discouraged me making further comments. Stick to the point. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many hundreds of AfDs that have established that deanship (in this case dean at VIP) and lab director are not the highest posts at an institution. As I said, it must be president, chancellor, or (sometimes) provost. "DRDO Scientist of the Year Award" is also not significant. It seems to be an internal award having no real sourcing of its own. For example, almost all the hits on a standard search for this award return web pages from DRDO itself! I'm afraid we are still left with a lack of proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly, Thank you very much for writing a short comment. I read it all this time. Coming to the point, yes, lab directors are not highest post at any institution. But what if a lab is a major academic institution itself? For example, Defence Bioengineering and Electromedical Laboratory and Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences? More, Contradictory to your previous arguments, there is a post of Director at DRDO -source. And this source refers subject as a former Director. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"what if, what if?" That's all this article has. There's nothing definite. Just how important were his roles and are they sourceable? It's full of claims like "14 years" and "director", but in what role was he there for 14 years? How significant a group was he "director" of? If these posts were as substantial as was implied by the first version of this article, I'd expect to see them making a bigger footprint. What's his publication history too? (I couldn't find anything). "Scientist of the year" ought to have a good citation score, let alone publications (even if just taking credit as lab director), yet he has none of it. Maybe someone more familiar with Indian academic journals would know where to look better than I do, but I can't find this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me put it this way, all the institutions they have headed the highest post at, are having their own standalone article and is an indication of significance. India sucks at sources published before 2000. Indian newspapers do not keep archives for their prints before 2000. Google doesn't crawl the Indian sources properly -as pointed out by Indian editing community at WP:INDAFD. And, yes, I expect an impressive publication history and has been able to find few mention on HighBeam published by US Federal Service, -[13], [14]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His publication record, and more importantly its impact, has been discussed above. Briefly, the Institute for Scientific Information "Web of Science" database (WoS) is the right source to check biomedical research impact (it does not depend upon country, so India is not at any sort of disadvantage here) and WoS shows that Lazar Mathew's impact (h-index 8) is what would be classified as on-par with an average junior-level faculty member at a research-oriented institution. In other words, it is not consistent with whom we are told is a very senior, very high-level and prestigious researcher who has been active for >30 years and has headed one of India's national research agencies. Agricola44 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, 1) WP:Systematic bias, and 2) They headed India's multiple national reputed research and academic institutions is what sources do substantiate. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...and now the "bias card" is played. Let me put this in perhaps a better perspective. Suppose we compare Mathew to someone who should be very similar in terms of research performance, i.e. a "senior" person in biomedical research who has been both educated in India and has worked in India for their entire career (where you are now claiming systematic bias) and who headed a major research institution in India: in this case Avadhesha Surolia (who, oddly, does not seem to have a WP page). Recall that Mathew's research impact is characterized by h-index 8 with the highest paper having 25 citations. Dr. Surolia's citation numbers (likewise obtained from WoS) are: 329, 168, 163, 154, 144, 142, 132, 127, 116,... (h-index 45). Do you see the enormous difference of impact (the latter of which is consistent with heading a major research agency)? How could this be if there is such a systematic bias in the publication of research originating in India? Of course, that's not the explanation. Rather, what we must conclude is that Lazar Mathew had, in fact, a very average and non-notable research career. Agricola44 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I didn't write that overnight. That's a community consensus. And yes, I didn't read your comments expect first sentence. I'm not going to find subject's publications. They headed multiple reputed academic institutions of national importance, that's enough to secure an article on Wikipedia. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've reached the end of what you and I can discuss in a reasonable way. I can only sum-up and step away: Mathew was a division head of one or more research divisions within DRDO, has a below-average publication record (not characteristic of a division head), is a fellow of one or more organizations where this honor is very widely bestowed to those applicants who pay a fee, and has won awards (like DRDO scientist of the year) that do not seem to be recognized outside of the organizations that bestowed them. The article's sources are poor, being mostly trivial mentions (Frontline, The Hindu), primary documents (DRDO itself), or web ephemera (e.g. his online bio). In my opinion, none of these aspects satisfies any of the WP:PROF criteria. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not going to waste my time to read /meaningless/ lengthy comments full of original research. First, you say, "it does not depend upon country, so India is not at any sort of disadvantage here [..]", when I linked you to WP:Systematic bias, you reply, "..bias card" is played". It's YOU who asked me for that to show you. I'm not willing to handle such nonsensical comments any longer.

A relevant comment from ongoing RFA by a long-standing, established and respected editor, Special:Diff/647805097.

They headed multiple reputed academic institutions of national importance, that's enough to secure an article on Wikipedia -per NACADEMIC #6 (see article for details). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a scientific administrator. For notability as a researcher , the standard is international. For notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. David, could you comment more on your assertion "for notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country"? I'm not familiar with the associated guideline. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I presume he means that there is an international notability standard for scientists, but that administrators and directors follow a country project's standards for notability. In which case the bar is likely to be very, very low, much as it is for geographical locations. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what is that standard, especially for a country like India that has a well-developed intellectual infrastructure? For example, there is consensus for the individual criteria in WP:PROF (e.g. notable administrative positions per se are chancellor, president, and sometimes provost), but so far, I only see assertion from the proponents of the article that a division head is also notable per se in this context. There very well may be another relevant guideline. I'm just trying to find out what it is. Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 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 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Discussion seems to have stalled without any consensus being reached. In reviewing the above text, it seems that the question of notability has been narrowed to whether his position in the DRDO qualifies. DGG, a knowledgeable and senior ed asserts "for notability as an administrator, it's within the individual's country", but I'm not familiar with any guideline that codifies this claim. Might anyone else weigh-in here, one way or another? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. The title "director" at the DRDO seems to mean director of one of DRDO's many individual laboratories, i.e. not the head of the entire organization. So this does not rise to the "highest-level position" (head of the entire organization) that would be required by WP:PROF#C6. The reference in the article that claims to source the director title makes this clear: it doesn't actually mention DRDO, but says that he directed INMAS, which is a lab within DRDO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Agricola's astute analysis. Most of the "keep" !votes are based on a misunderstanding of WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to come down to whether Lazar Mathew has indeed held the "highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society", and the evidence presented here seems to indicate that he has not, but has instead been the head of a laboratory within such an institution. (I'm open to changing my opinion if I see further evidence, or explanation of other guidelines of which I am not currently aware, eg country-specific administrator notability guidelines). Squinge (talk) 14:54, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick B. Ogden[edit]

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

Odgen's main claim to fame is having been mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. That city has never had more than 70,000 residents, always been overshadowed by its larger regional neighbors, and was not even that big when he was mayor. His other claim to fame would just derive from being the son of a man who was notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have more than two claims to fame. It seems he was also judge of the district court, and "prominent" as a lawyer: [15]. James500 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey for failing GNG and POLITICIAN. Nothing in The New York Times archives, and the existing references aren't about him. His father and grandfather have articles, but you can't inherit notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the coverage is sufficient. I also think that being a mayor, judge of the district court and prominent lawyer is sufficient for a person who died in 1893. I suspect that BIO was written with BLPs in mind, and doubt its applicability. The existing references are about him. He does not need to be their only, or even primary, subject. That said, he has, for example, his own dedicated article in a biographical dictionary, so there is no problem with the volume of coverage. He does not need to be mentioned in the NYT, and a search of its archives is not enough to establish non-notability. I don't think the size of Hoboken is an issue, and I don't think that 70,000 is small, since it is larger than some parliamentary constituencies. James500 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Obituary and an encyclopedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 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 // 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 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 16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. I can't find any support for the "prominent lawyer" claim above. The article doesn't say he was prominent (a slippery concept anyway). What source does? Bishonen | talk 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided here establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors of small towns rarely meet WP:NPOL. It's easy to find mention of them, but usually they don't have significant third party coverage, and this one is not an exception. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor (size of Hoboken not a factor) with sufficient sources considering he is 19th century. And judge too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:10, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Maple[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being a state parks official and chamber of commerce official; no evidence of significant third-party WP:RS coverage to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither positions nor coverage establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meets the general notability guideline based on the reliable sources, not on any inherent notability of any position he held. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references are just about useless. Many of them are from the Minden Press-Herald, a local paper of unspecified circulation of which he happened to have been an editor. The rest are even worse. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a journalist in several states. Should not be under the politicians listing, but journalist.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable as a journalist"^{[citation needed]} Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So being the news editor of a few small town newspapers now makes one notable? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is the focus of sufficient reliable third-party coverage to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds for WP:GNG. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a whole swamp of unverified material in associated articles as well. The Shreveport Times obituary, claimed to have been successfully retrieved just a few days ago, seems to have been giving a 404 since at least July 2011 according to the Internet Archive. Samsara 14:29, 27 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 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 404 matter has been corrected. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with regret. The article, which I first presumed to be a memorial created by someone close to Mr. Maple, is in fact one of a remarkable series of biographical article created over many years by User:Billy Hathorn. I readily see why this was created by Hathorn , who, I assume, stumbled upon Maple while writing articles about newspapers, editors and publishers in the region. I assume that the details of Maples life as presented here are accurate and verified. However, the article fails to pass WP:GNG. Maple was an editor for a series of small papers, but not ever an editor-in-chief and never worked on a major paper. Other positions were things like running a small town chamber of commerce. Crucially, he attracted no coverage in third part reliable sources at all. It is not even clear whether the obit was editorial, or produced by the family. Like Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life, Maple appears to have led a worthy life, of interest to only his own circle of loved ones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:GNG and E.M.Gregory's eloquent comment. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 7 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 without prejudice against listify / merge / move. No consensus emerged from the discussion on what exactly to do with the article, but all participants agree that the best course of action does not involve an admin hitting the delete button at this stage. Der yck C. 00:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific War campaigns[edit]

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

I bring this article to AFD with no opinion. It was marked as a Speedy Delete candidate but the article creator made a plausible argument on the talk page for keeping the page. I bring it here for greater scrutiny and for a broader consensus. JodyB_talk 23:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and potentially merge. FalconKnight makes a good argument; this article overlaps (duplicates) several others, to include List of military engagements of World War II, List of World War II battles and Pacific Ocean theater of World War II particularly. I already feel a bit overwhelmed reading those and there should not be another. I like how the author organized the subject article and maybe some of the battles can be merged in.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge and redirect to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II. There is a major problem with this article. It includes things outside its purported scope in two ways: (1) non-campaigns - battles, incidents, "Transport of POWs via hell ships", and (2) actions that were not part of the Pacific War, e.g. Marco Polo Bridge Incident. That being said, Pacific Ocean theater of World War II is pretty short, and there's no reason the first word couldn't be removed from the section title "Major campaigns and battles". Then, we should consider merging List of World War II battles into List of military engagements of World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RightCowLeftCoast, below.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, List of military engagements of World War II (which is organized by year and type [air, land, sea]) and List of World War II battles (which is grouped by area). Then delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was split out of the Pacific War article (improving that article IMO). The Pacific Ocean theater of World War II article covers a different topic - the Pacific Theatre was a US miliary concept covering the Pacific Ocean area, and doesn't include the extensive fighting which took place on the mainland of Asia. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. A selective merge still seems reasonable to me, just not as extensive as I originally thought. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article appears to be a sub-article spunout from Pacific War, see this diff, and the article's creation. As such the notability in question is the parent article's notability. This article was created due to WP:SIZE, and not because it is independently notable. As a list, it appears valid per WP:LISTPURP. Now whether it should be a stand alone list or embedded list is open to debate, surely. However, as a sub-article it is entirely valid. If it needs to be fixed as it goes outside of its scope, that is something to be done on the article. Deleting an article is not a substitution for working on it; see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 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 // 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in agreement with User:Coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueCanoe (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 February 2015‎

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 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 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Studia Humaniora Tartuensia[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since the last AfD over 2 years ago, or actually gotten worse. Journal has published 2 (TWO) articles in 2013, nothing since. Not indexed in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing notability. Neutrality^talk 01:59, 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 16:34, 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 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona McIlwham[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. As several AfDs have shown , ambassadors are not inherently notable, so recycling the old keep by virtue of their position doesn't work. Secondly, I could only find coverage confirming she is an ambassador but nothing in depth. LibStar (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although weakly so; if article had actual references showing notability (they might be out there) I would reconsider my stance. Neutrality^talk 02:04, 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 16:31, 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 redirect to Joy Division discography. Nakon 05:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Movie Begin[edit]

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

Unable to establish notability outside of an AllMusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deserves little more than a mention on Joy Division. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 01:50, 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 16:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joy Division discography, where it is listed, and because this is a valid search term. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 7 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 Revelation (BJM album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fist Full of Bees (EP)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps redirect to Revelation (BJM album). Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revelation (BJM album), where two of the three songs were later released. Bit of useful info here that can comfortably fit in the album article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:21, 26 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 16:30, 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. Nakon 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One (BJM EP)[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to the article "The Brian Jonestown Massacre". Hajme 23:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Researched, and changed my vote to delete due to the scarcity of sources, per below. Hajme 17:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not reach WP:GNG --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 22 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 16:30, 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 redirect to Andrés Cepeda. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poligamia[edit]

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

Non-notable music group. Google results show no reliable sources that cover the subject. Unsourced since October 2006. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andres Cepeda, who appears to be much more notable than this band. Everymorning talk 00:59, 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 16:29, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn Press[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing corp. Nothing but passing mentions from a basic Google search, Google Books search, and a News search. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, no notable sources found. (Wikiarticle has been around since 2006, seems too have slipped through for years unnoticed.)Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 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 16:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little to no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:43, 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 redirect to The Velvet Underground discography. (I very rarely close on one !vote but this has been up 3 weeks and I'm fairly certain relisting another week will only gain another Redirect so speeding it up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles (The Velvet Underground album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Velvet Underground or The Velvet Underground discography. Locally issued non-charting budget compilation. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:10, 27 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 16:28, 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 proposed redirect target does not seem to exist, but no objection to redirecting this if there is another suitable target. Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Mill Road[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG; no independent reliable sources are present to attest to the notability of this road. The recent additions about the "notoriety" of the road regarding the "McMansion"are a classic case of assuming notability by inheritance. Such content might support notability of that specific structure, but it does not make the road notable. The remainder of the content about the road can be summed up by the first sentence: "For a number of years, Henderson Mill Road was indistinguishable from the many nondescript streets of the north-eastern suburbs of metropolitan Atlanta." The attempts to distinguish it are unsourced, so that attempt fails WP:GNG as well. Imzadi 1979 → 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I support that anyone who wants to test this road's notability for a Wikipedia article must focus on finding how frequently mentions of this road occur online that are not:
1. Maps
2. Directories
3. Driving directions
4. Wikipedia mirrors
Any fifth category?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unremarkable suburban road. Dough 48 72 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I affirm my delete vote as the information added implies the surroundings of the road are notable but not the road itself. Remember, the road itself needs to have notability in order to demonstrate it should have its own article. From the looks of this, this is an average suburban road that just happens to pass several notable landmarks. Dough 48 72 02:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. Once the article was listed as a possible candidate for deletion, I undertook an effort to add content. Within hours of that initial effort, and before I could even complete the initial work, Imzadi1979 posted here. The historic significance of this road (information recently added) is enough to support notability. A map and references have been added. More to come. Slow down. AGAINST Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Being old doesn't make something notable. My parents' house has been in the family since 1896, yet I can't write an article about it because I don't have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to use to cite such an article.
  Notability can't be inherited, so the mill does not make the road notable, nor does the "McMansion" mentioned in the nomination statement. The information regarding the name of the mill, the troops that visited it, and the demolition of the mill pond would all establish notability, for the mill, not the road. You need "significant coverage" about the road "in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of the road. If this road were on the National Highway System, you might be able to argue notability, but that's not the case. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. And you are ignoring the road as one of a very few early commercial thoroughfares (eminating from the mill), moving people and goods and providing a route of communication, in the formative years of the county, and as a later route for conquest. Like the river highways of Colonial times, or commercial corridors of 19th century railroads, this road is significant in the context of history, and subsequent development of the area. Your parent's house didn't do that. It is shortsighted to simply dismiss it as an "unremarkable suburban road". Gulbenk (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where are those sources for those claims? They aren't in the article, and depending on the situation, you haven't met the burden for a separate article about the road. You may have met the notability burden for mentioning the road in a history of the county, or mentioning it in the history of the mill. However, the hurdle for a separate article on the road itself is higher. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - A great number of "reliable sources independent of the subject" have been added to the article, but their additions are in vain.
        The three webpages from The Historical Marker Database are not about the road itself, although the one marker tangentially mentions the road; these do not support notability under WP:GNG.
        
        Two webpages from the school district support details tangential to the road; no WP:GNG support here.
        
        A book from the University of Georgia Press is used to reference a detail about a creek along the route of the road, plus two direct quotes related to the mill; no WP:GNG support here either.
        
        Various news articles from publications like the North Druid Hill/Briarcliff Patch (questionable on the reliability scale); the New York Post and the Times Newsweekly (both about the notoriety of the owner of a house along the road, which doesn't translate into notability about the road); No WP:GNG support here.
        
        A book from the Georgia Department of Archives and History only backs information about the county, not the road; again, no WP:GNG support here
        
        Webpages from The City of Tucker Initiative, Tucker Historical Society, Ohio State University Department of History, City of Briarcliff Initiative (COBI) Information, LaVista Hills YES!, Trulia, and the District Attorney of Queens County, New York, have nothing to do about the road, and instead deal with history of the mill, the county or some murder case several states away that has a tangential connection to a house along the road. None of this is WP:GNG support for an article on a road.
        
        An entry from a blog called Northlake Station and hosted on Blogspot is not reliable at all, so it fails all parts of the WP:GNG test except independence from the subject.
        
        That leaves three sources dealing with the road: Google Maps, the road classification page from the Tucker Civic Association and the FHWA National Highway System map. For a road that is not on the NHS or the state highway system, these fail to establish WP:GNG-level notability.
      - Now, compare this article to M-1 (Michigan highway) where there are actually articles about M-1 (Woodward Avenue), books written about it, and chapters or references that are directly about the road itself, and not just about something next to the road. Yes, the article discusses other things along the road, but in putting things into context as to why M-1 is a Pure Michigan Byway and National Scenic Byway/All-American Road, designations that encompass the immediate surroundings.
        Other articles on state highways may not have this level of coverage (like M-28), but those articles are necessary to have a complete coverage of the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System and its components. Imzadi 1979 → 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that makes the road itself notable. As Imzadi1979 said, a lot of this would be better suited for a history of the surrounding area. T C N7JM 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a good sampling of the WikiProject U.S. Streets opinion here. Coming from the WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) point of view, I believe that the subject matter, the road, is the only way to present the disparate subjects (mill, people, commerce, communication, history, transportation, politics) in a coherent manner. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that those separate elements are notable. Yet, as presented, each is tied directly to the road, and the road to them. Would WikiProject U.S. Streets have objection to this article if the road was designated as (currently) important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility? Likely not. I have demonstrated that this road was important to the area's economy, defense, and mobility during the formative years of the 19th century. That historical significance is notable, and notability is not transient. Whatever this forum may think of the road, today, historic notabilty endures. But it seems that the majority of opinions expressed here are based on a different metric. I'll accept that as the way you think. I only ask, that several days from now when an administrator makes the final review, that arbiter not have any ties to either WikiProject U.S. Streets or WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state). Gulbenk (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference in your analogy: the National Highway System is the "network of roads that are important to the nation's economy, defense, and mobility", while you're talking about a road that was important to a local area over a century and a half ago. Assuming said level of notability is permanent, you're talking the difference between nation and area, and that doesn't equate to surpassing the notability threshold. Imzadi 1979 → 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the road itself isn't notable. I'm sorry, because the article seems to be a labor of love, but still. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Any chance this article could be maintained, with a change of title, such as History of Henderson Mill Road? That would take it out of the domain of roads, per se. Gulbenk (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Since there seems to be a lot of information about the mill, we could redirect this page to just Henderson Mill. Hope this would work. Martin4647 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Bodmer[edit]

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

Sadly, appears to fail WP:GNG, though promising young artist. Article is written by a newcomer, so I worked to try to find more refs to help out. It might squeak by on #3 criteria of WP:FILMMAKER, but it would be a stretch, for the documentary which garnered some attention sporadically in local/regional press markets. Gaff (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. The film might squeak by, but at this point would be more likely to simply garner a mention on Barefoot Bandit. Once she's received significant coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated. Pburka (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy for now per being slightly WP:TOOSOON. Ms Bodmer has some coverage but it is all in conjunction with either her arguably notable documentary or mentions in regards her Dead Season horror film. I'd opine that if we had just one or two more dealing otherwise with she and her career, this would be a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:38, 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 procedural close. Content in draft namespace is to be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Computer Science and Telecommunications Engineering[edit]

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

Stub not notable, already have large, well done articles telecommunications engineering, Computer science, Computer engineering, Individual universities don't need own articles for their degrees in their fields -- Aronzak (talk) 15:12, 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 Speedy Keep. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Disaster[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Have seen the reviews and agree with The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) does satisfy WP:NBOOK - sorry:) - have incorporated the reviews into the article.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The external link provides multiple independent reviews of the novel (one by the quite notable author-critic Brian Stableford), establishing a prima facie case that NBOOK is satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:34, 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 speedy delete. WP:G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Carrascosa Muñoz Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Carrascosa Muñoz[edit]

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

G4 speedy, as this was just deleted yesterday. Pax 10:31, 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. Consensus herein is for article deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Sufi Festival[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) 09:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable festival, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT. Pax 00:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 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. Bishonen | talk 21:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rahe Bhander Ennoble Award[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) 09:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete insufficient third party sources, no article in Bengali. LibStar (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject the award is named after couldn't survive AfD, so... Pax 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why keep it? – nafSadh did say 03:19, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Apps[edit]

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

Non-notable piper - article seems like advertisement for reed business. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If anyone has a question, or wants to see if I can drag something out to help with anything, let me know. As I made clear on the Talk Page, I'm WP:COI girl over here, so that'll be it from me. Having said that, I didn't see it breaking neutrality, and a PROD for notability was rejected. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see nothing in this 2012 article created by an established editor and admin that conflicts with any of our inclusion policies or guidelines. ~~Moreover, I venture to suggest that the nominator, an extremely, new user, has an agenda against such articles.~~ Author appears to have substantial subject knowledge and is otherwise doing good work in this area. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article has had various templates added and removed, and I don't see that much has changed since then. Some of the sources are offline and I'm reluctant to !vote delete without seeing what they say. This book by the subject has appeared recently. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about the arcane world of bagpipes to make a judgement on notability, but that aside, the article does not read like an advertisement. TheBlueCanoe 15:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I simply don't see encyclopedic relevance here, and none of the sources in the article establish notability. A self-published 45-page kindle book doesn't add anything. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: We are heading to a no consensus closure, but let us try one more relist.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a tough one to call, and I am going to have to go with keeping the article on the site. I do not see the article being an advertisement, as it reads very neutral when compared to some of the material on the site. One thing that I did notice is that there are a good number of Google hits for the name, many of which revolve around his reed work and judging of competitions. The only thing that that goes against this is that there is a lack of immediate news sources in the press which is generally a good way of noting notability on Wikipedia. Still, the piping community is fairly small, so I do not think that lack of sources akin to the New York Times, or other big news corporations should be held against keeping the article here, as the user who wrote this stated early on their connection with the topic and is a well-respected administrator, as Kudpung stated above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Means[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:BASE/N John from Idegon (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's from the Cleveland area, played college ball in Indiana, and is a professional for Cincinnati. I checked the major newspapers from those areas (cleveland.com, indystar.com, cincinnati.com) and came up with only a few minor mentions. He doesn't pass GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The usual coverage for anyone who might be in the MLB draft, but nothing significant to meet WP:GNG. No sources to show he meets WP:NBASEBALL or WP:NCOLLATH, either.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 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. Nakon 05:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CKER-TV[edit]

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

Wikipedia's notability rules for media do not confer an automatic presumption of notability on unlicensed community television stations. Neither CRTC licensing records nor the Canadian Communications Foundation contain any documented evidence of this station's existence, and while its own website certainly demonstrates that it exists, that's a primary source which cannot confer notability in the absence of reliable source coverage. As written, further, the article fails to clarify whether this is a low-power broadcast station, a cable channel or a closed-circuit broadcaster — so it simply does not get an automatic "because it exists" notability freebie in the absence of any reliable sourcing about it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of defunct Canadian television stations. Source searches do not provide adequate coverage to support a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – According to this article ("CKER closing up shop") it was a public access cable station carried on 2 cable channels. It existed for one and a half years and served the Kahnawake Mohawk Territory. It did have some original programming. But according to WP:BROADCAST, the service area was probably too small – public access cable stations are "not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area", like statewide or NYC. If we were going to merge into List of defunct Canadian television stations, I think we would have to keep it, because that page is a lists of links. It would only take a few minutes to rewrite the article for that purpose, but I think it was probably never notable enough for a separate article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:05, 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia Cafe[edit]

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

Doesn't have any significant secondary coverage (WP:GNG). Isn't fit for a stand-alone article. StewdioMACK ^{Talk page} 02:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in te list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A comedy touchstone, one of the best known of the early SNL recurring skits. Frequently referenced in all sorts of contexts, from food service issues [16][17] to Chicago history [18][19] and of course all the time in SNL related coverage, [20] as searches for the phrase "cheeseburger cheeseburger" (see the "find sources" links above) will readily show. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An excellent little piece which is certainly notable - see A Chicago Tavern: A Goat, a Curse, and the American Dream, for example. I'm now going to add crosslinks to its transatlantic cousins, Spam and the Cheese Shop. Andrew D. (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Billy Goat Tavern LavaBaron (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Merging would be improper because the Billy Goat Tavern and the SNL set are/were different places.) Pax 04:52, 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 Vassar College. Nakon 05:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founder's Day (Music Festival)[edit]

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

Non-notable university festival - sources are all to university websites or social media, YouTube etc. LouiseS1979^(pigeonhole) 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Not even mentioned in WP's own Vassar article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:07, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only sources I found were that of a similarly named festival in South Carolina, and not this one, which is held in New York State. This means we can't establish notability for this article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vassar College, which presently does not mention the festival. As a festival that has occurred from 1866 – present, this content would enhance the merge target. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 7 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 The Cure. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Circle Tour[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a Wikipedia-notable event. Lachlan Foley (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is unsourced, and I was not able to find sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cure, leaving the potential for a merge. It exists and is verifiable per mentions in reliable sources (e.g. El Paso Times: "The "Great Circle" tour started in April in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, and continued in July with sets in South Korea, Japan and Hawaii."), but the overall depth of coverage is not enough to qualify a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 7 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 The Brian Jonestown Massacre discography. Nakon 05:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero (Songs from Bravery, Repetition and Noise)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. I'd suggest a redirect to Bravery, Repetition and Noise. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:39, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Brian Jonestown Massacre discography, where this is listed. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:28, 7 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 The Velvet Underground discography. Nakon 05:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Goes On (album)[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Velvet Underground discography, where this is listed. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 7 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 The_Velvet_Underground_discography#Compilations. (I very rarely close on one !vote but this has been up 3 weeks and I'm fairly certain relisting another week will only gain another Redirect so speeding it up) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Velvet Underground Playlist Plus[edit]

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

This does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable or likely to ever expand further than a stub article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:35, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Velvet_Underground_discography#Compilations. Pax 04:55, 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. Closing as Keep as been up 3 weeks and both editors here have provided sources which all pass GNG/CORDEPH. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sate Kajang Haji Samuri[edit]

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

I do not believe this fast-food restaurant is notable because I was only able to find self-published sources and passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like [21] and [22] - and there are more - seem to amount to more than mere passing mentions. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

History onset of Sate Kajang. Malaysian Digest. (See English-translated page)
Best Satay in KL and Selangor. The Malaysian Insider.
Two satay eateries in Kajang reel in the crowds. The Star.
Sate Kajang Haji Samuri is top choice. The Star. (very short article, but headlined)

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 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 The_Velvet_Underground_discography#Compilations. (I very rarely close on one !vote but this has been up 3 weeks and I'm fairly certain relisting another week will only gain another Redirect so speeding it up) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock and Roll: An Introduction to The Velvet Underground[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 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, Missvain (talk) 00:33, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Velvet_Underground_discography#Compilations. Pax 04:56, 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 was already deleted once as the result of an AfD, thus the article is amenable to speedy deletion, and is unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kornkan Sutthikoses[edit]

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

Can't find much notability (or sourced I should say). His refs were all unreliable. Checked out the Thai page and the refs were exactly the same. He came at number 18 in a contest-which not sure what to say. And this also seems like a research page even. Wgolf (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I just noticed-the creator of the articles name. Looks like this might be a autobio! Wgolf (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of an article deleted before via AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kornkan sutthikoses). QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 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. Michig (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homayon Nezami[edit]

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

The subject has no coverage I can find in reliable sources. No news articles in English. Unless there is significant coverage in foreign language press being First Secretary in a foreign Mission is not sufficient for the subject to have inherent notability per WP:POL. The only reference in the article is his bio page from the Afghan Mission in India. This is obviously not an independent third party source. He fails general notability guidelines. There are no sources to verify even the information on the page. JBH (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this page User:\\'arrior 786 tried to hide this discussion by creating a false no such page notice. Extra eyes here would be useful. JBH (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:\\'arrior 786 removed above comment as well as the 'REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD' template [23]. JBH (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another non-notable junior mission functionary four levels below "ambassador" rank. Pax 05:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of his roles carry inherent notability. The disruptive behavior of article creator indicates a strong conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too junior for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there's no inherent notability for ambassadors in any case. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't an ambassador. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 6 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. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Shui (2011 film)[edit]

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

A completely unsourced article that consists almost entirely of a plot summary. An internet search does not show anything about this film. Rather, it gives results for another movie titled Feng Shui, which is about a woman in the 1990s, as well as Feng Shui (2004 film) and Feng Shui 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS. BenLinus 1214^talk 03:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete Looking for sources in Chinese is especially daunting, because "風水 +2011 +電影" gives mostly "movie celebrities' fortunes in 2011" or the like. That there is no article of both the movie and the source novel in zhwp puts me closer to delete for now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film exists, but it's not notable. I couldn't find anything useful to save this article.Antigng (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: If this non-Western film had television release in China, I will opt to await input from Wikipedians better able than I to search for and find proper Chinese language sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: both User:Hisashiyarouin and User:Antigng appear to be native speakers of Chinese, and they both thought that the article should be deleted. Does that change your opinion at all? :) BenLinus 1214^talk 15:54, 5 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. (WP:SNOW). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cheatham[edit]

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

The subject of this article doesn't appear to be notable. I can't find any evidence that he actually played in the NFL or the CFL and he doesn't look to be notable merely on the merits of his college football career. All-conference in the NAIA probably doesn't cut it. A cursory Google seach doesn't turn up much either. Note that there are some hits for other athletes of the same name, a Ron Cheatham who was a running back at Washington State in the 1970s and briefly with the BC Lions in 1975 and another Ron Cheatham who played basketball at Indiana State in the late 1980s. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not finding significant coverage of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG regarding the subject of this article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable small college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards or honors) or professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never played a regular season game in the NFL or CFL]]. There is insufficient significant coverage of subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched and searched for some evidence that he actually played in the NFL or CFL but I can't find any record of it. Unless someone can show that he actually played a regular season game in one of these leagues then he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not listed on all-timer roster of Hamilton ([24]), Cincinnati ([25]), or Indianapolis ([26]). RonSigPi (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NGRIDIRON. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG with no significant coverage. NAIA all district 20 is not a national award.204.126.132.231 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by Nflalumnichicago. Cheatham is apparently "Vice-President of the NFL Alumni Chapter in Chicago." This suggests a COI or possible vanity page. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 13:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NGRIDIRON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable athlete.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:37, 5 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 and redirect to Project Runway (season 10). Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Slivnyak[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO valereee (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 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, cyberdog958^Talk 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet notability criteria. Nakon 02:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, unless fashion designers have a higher bar than many other notable people. She has a slew of mentions on the Internet right now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete "mentions on the internet " are not what makes for notability. If that's all there is, the win tenet is sufficient for them, not WP. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Project Runway (season 10), or else delete. Ms Slivnyak lacks notability, and her article lacks proper sourcing for a separate article.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:14, 27 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, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 02:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to reach WP:GNG. No objection to delete and redirect to Project Runway (season 10) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion - "Unreferenced geographical stub" is as about as invalid as it gets!. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Hack[edit]

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

Unreferenced geographical stub. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 02:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A nominator has the obligation to check WP:BEFORE. References to its existence are not hard to come by.[27][28][29] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep sources have been added. Geogene (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The relevant deletion criterion, WP:DEL-REASON #7, says "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". As per above, nominator failed to check for sources as per WP:BEFORE. Esquivalience ^t 03:23, 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. Nakon 04:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of law journals india[edit]

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

List of unlinked articles with no proof of notablility with regards to them. Amortias (T)(C) 19:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly non-notable journals with a bunch of external links to the journal homepages. After deletion, a redirect to List of law journals#India could be appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at List of Indian law journals or merge and redirect to List of law journals#India, which is the parent list. Law journals are collectively notable and therefore satisfy LISTN. Moreover LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability. Whether any of the journals are individually notable is utterly irrelevant. Indeed compiling a list of notable members of any set of things automatically violates WP:CIRCULAR, because it is a self-reference that constitutes inherently unverifiable original research (you will never find a reliable source that says, in express words, "Journal X satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria" which is what would be needed as a minimum). What matters is whether the group is collectively notable. The only relevant issue is whether the parent list has become too long. Since this is a plausible redirect, there are no grounds for deletion (WP:R), whether or not there may be grounds for merger. At any rate, the arguments advanced above are manifest total nonsense that completely fail to understand LISTN and NOR. There is WP:SNOW chance of this being deleted on grounds of notability. James500 (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are well known law journals in India and most of these are published for more than 5 decades. Intlawind (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - it's already been merged. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, it has simply been moved to List of Indian law journals. That's grammatically better, of course, but it is always confusing if articles get moved during an AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500. Now Wikified somewhat; List of law journals#India contains only the journals with linked articles + a {{Main}} to List of Indian law journals, which now lists the full twenty or so, linked or not. -Arb. (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like List of law journals does not accept redlinked entries - is this an issue with notability or with ownership? Notable journals should allow to exist in redlinked form until an article is created. Samsara 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate list. This sort of bibliographic listing is within our scope. DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:43, 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 merge to 69th Infantry Regiment (United States). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

69th Infantry Regiment (New York)[edit]

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

Duplicate of 69th Infantry Regiment (United States) ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MergeBobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 02:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 69th Infantry Regiment (United States). Obviously they are parallel articles. Most of the content was created in this article, as can be seen by comparing (this version) of this article with (this version) of 69th Infantry Regiment (United States) from 31 December 2012. A lot of material was copied from this article to the (United States) article in (this edit) in June 2013. Since then they have been edited in parallel, with more edits in this article. So it looks like they should be merged. (Instead of AfD, it might have been better to handle this via the merger process. That is probably still a good idea.) – Margin1522 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article deserve to be kept. I have no idea why this was nominated for deletion.--Diomadi (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is suggesting the information should be deleted, since there's another article on the same regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should never have been posted for deletion (Robert E. Lee gave them their nickname; they landed on Okinawa)Merge keeping both names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's the same regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 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 Perl#Perl golf. Nom should've been WP:BOLD and redirected themselves. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Golf Apocalypse[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can't find any reliable sources covering this competition. Esquivalience ^t 01:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Perl golf. This is a minor one-time event in the history of Perl. I think it was covered briefly in The Perl Journal and mentioned in passing at Wired. There are secondary non-reliable sources such as Perl timeline. But I could not find multiple in-depth reliable sources for this competition. The one sentence mention in Perl#Perl golf seems appropriate weight and Perl Golf Apocalypse seems like a plausible search term, so a redirect would be reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Perl#Perl golf as nominator (rationale as per above). Esquivalience ^t 05:26, 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. The article has been substantially rewritten and now sufficiently meets the criteria for inclusion. Nakon 04:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moongate (book)[edit]

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

A moonshot conspiracy book which says the moon has much higher gravity than NASA admits, and other amazing claims. The article is referenced only to the book. I could not find references or reviews to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). It is held by only 21 libraries worldwide, per Worldcat. Edison (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Vankin, Jonathan; Whalen, John (2004). The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time: History's Biggest Mysteries, Coverups, and Cabals. New York: Citadel Press. pp. 132–137. ISBN 0806525312. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  The book notes:
  To quote from his favorite TV show, where Hoagland had arrived by 1996 was hardly a place No Man had gone before. William L. Brian II, Oregon-based author of the 1982 book Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, sketched out a similar planet-shaking, NASA-scamming history of the solar system.
  Brian set out to build a case (complete with algebraic proofs—and more caution-to-the-wind speculation than Hoagland has ever mustered) for NASA's "monstrous suppression" of the facts about alien intelligence on the moon.
  The basis of Brian's cosmic thesis is his belief that NASA is lying when it says the moon's gravity is one-sixth that of the earth (Hoagland disagrees with this assumption). Using calculators too complex to go into here—they're helpfully assembled in appendix B of his book—Brian purports to prove that NASA learned during the 1960s that the moon's gravitational field was actually a whopping 64 percent as strong as the earth's.
  Discussion about the book's ideas continue are discussed from pages 132–137.
2. Launius, Roger D.; Hunley, J. D. (1994). An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program. Washington, D.C.: NASA. OCLC 31813054. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-02-20. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  The source notes:
  Brian, William L., II. Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, the NASA-Military Cover-up. Portland, OR: Future Science Research Pub. Co., 1982. As the title suggests, this is a sensationalistic exposé arguing that "the true circumstances surrounding the Apollo missions and related discoveries were carefully suppressed from the public." The author claims that far from NASA's space program being a civilian effort as advertised, "the military had almost complete control over it and...many NASA findings were withheld from the public." The title of Chapter 10, "Evidence of Extraterrestrial Interference in the Space Program," will suggest the highly speculative and tenuous tenor of the book, much of which is quite technical, to boot. Lightly footnoted with references alike to scholarly sources and The National Enquirer, the work should be consulted with great caution by those without a solid grounding in space history and technology.
3. Safta, Alexandru (2009-04-07). "Operatiunea secreta Luna-Marte". Descoperă.ro (in Romanian). Archived from the original on 2015-02-20. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  The article notes:
  "Lunaticul" Brian
  
  William L. Brian al II-lea, autor al cartii "Moongate: descoperirile secrete ale programului spatial al SUA", lansata in 1982, isi va face si el aparitia in "teatrul de razboi" al teoriilor conspirationiste, schitand un peisaj asemanator al lucrurilor, undein. Brian si-a propus sa faca o ancheta referitoare la ascunderea masinata de NASA a inteligentei extraterestre de pe Luna. Baza tezei sale este aceea ca NASA minte atunci cand pretinde ca gravitatia Lunii este de sase ori mai mica decat cea a Pamantului. Astfel, Brian doreste sa demonstreze ca NASA a descoperit, in anii '60, despre campul gravitational selenar ca acesta are, in realitate, 64% din forta celui terestrui. Implicatiile acestei descoperiri sunt, potrivit lui Brian, suficient de infricosatoare incat sa stimuleze o musamalizare a NASA. Daca atractia gravitationala a Lunii ar fi intr-adevar apropiata ca valoare de cea a Pamantului, legea gravitatiei universale a lui Newton ar fi in intregime gresita si fizica conventionala s-ar baza pe o fundatie nesigura. Mai mult, autorul sustine ca o gravitatie puternica a Lunii ar mai implica si existenta unei atmosfere, care ar duce mai departe la posibilitatea existentei vietii, poate chiar a uneia evoluate.
  Google Translate says:
  William L. Brian II, author of "Moongate discoveries secret US space program", launched in 1982, and he will make an appearance in "theater of war" conspiracy theories, like sketching a landscape of things , undein. Brian has proposed to make an investigation of NASA hiding extraterrestrial intelligence machine on the Moon. The basis of his thesis is that NASA claims to mind when the moon's gravity is six times smaller than that of the Earth. The Brian wants to demonstrate that NASA discovered in the 60s, about lunar gravitational field that it has, in fact, 64% of the land force. The implications of this discovery are, according to Brian's scary enough to stimulate a cover of NASA. If the gravitational attraction of the moon would be really close in value to that of the Earth, Newton's law of universal gravitation would be entirely wrong and conventional physics would be based on an uncertain foundation. Moreover, the author argues that a strong gravity of the moon would imply the existence of an atmosphere, which would further the possibility of existence of life, perhaps one evolved.
4. Adam, Sadek (1999). Hollow Earth Authentic. London: Health Research Books. p. 69. ISBN 0953444104. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  The book notes:
  Book 15: Brian, William L. Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up. Future Science Research Publishing Co., P.O. Box 06392, Portland, Oregon 97206-0020. Reprint Health Research.
  
  A brilliant expose of the NASA-Military cover-up. Beautiful photographs of anomalies on the moon. (See also book 16 below). Study the logistics of the Lunar Module lift-off from the lunar surface. Contains another excellent chapter on the hollow earth. These two chapters by Brian and Cater (above) cover in precis form almost all the arguments detailed in chapter two this book. Brian has also written for Nexus magazine.
5. Childress, David Hatcher, ed. (2011). The Anti-Gravity Handbook. Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 224–225. ISBN 1935487442. Retrieved 2015-02-20.
  The book notes:
  That the moon's gravity is one sixth of the earth's has been assumed for centuries, though there is now evidence that this [is] not the case. William L. Brian II, a Nuclear Engineer from Oregon State University investigated what he calls a "NASA cover-up" in his 1982 book entitled "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up".
  Brian centers his argument for a cover-up on the so-called "neutral point" between the earth and the moon. This neutral point, and all gravitational bodies have them, is the point where a space vehicle enters the predominant attractive zone of the moon's gravity. It is the region in space where the earth's force of attraction equals the moon's force of attraction...
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Moongate to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best sources that establish notability are Jonathan Vankin's book and the NASA source. Cunard (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Notability guidelines. A self-published book which few people have read and which has received almost no notable coverage.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references above essentially amount to citations, not sources about the book. At least one is also published by a very minor publisher (Health Research Books). LaMona (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep appears to meet WP:GNG - topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article - re sources given by Cunard, they dont appear to 'essentially amount to citations' or part of a reading list but do seem to discuss the book in some detail. Although, it may be better to incorporate the info of this article into another article like Moon landing conspiracy theories as this article is WP:FRINGE? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA article is a review of the book, and the other sources analyze the book's ideas in detail. I agree that WP:GNG is easily met.
This article is about the book itself rather the fringe theory espoused by the book, so I don't think a merge is required by WP:FRINGE since the book passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is, this is not an article about the book. It is just a summary of the book, original research. If there is no info for writing about the book from reliable sources, there is no article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere synopses (with no interpretation) are not original research per MOS:PLOT, which says:
Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.
As I wrote to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP and there is no deadline. That the article is currently "a summary of the book" is not a valid reason for deletion. The article has the potential to contain secondary analysis (see the sources I provided above):
1. NASA: The book is a "sensationalistic exposé". The "Evidence of Extraterrestrial Interference in the Space Program" chapter indicates the "highly speculative and tenuous tenor of the book, much of which is quite technical". The book is "Lightly footnoted with references alike to scholarly sources and The National Enquirer, the work should be consulted with great caution by those without a solid grounding in space history and technology." This review of the book goes beyond just plot information and is clearly the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
2. Sadek Adam's book: The book is "a brilliant expose". It has "beautiful photographs of anomalies on the moon." It has an "excellent chapter on the hollow earth".
3. Jonathan Vankin's book: He spends five pages analyzing the book's ideas.
Cunard (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Presenting fictional material from the original work is allowed, provided passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article,

The passages are not short, they constitute the entire article. They have no context, because there is none in the article, it is only the plot summary, nothing more. They constitute not only the main portion, but all of the article. As you have supplied this information, may I assume you are now voting to delete? As you point out, there is no deadline to create the article. It can await proper sourcing. Thank you for adding policy information to support my vote.

Might I add, if you put as much into the articles as you put into arguing to keep them, they might be Wikipedia articles by this time?MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It can await proper sourcing." – that statement applies only to BLPs and BLP-related material. For all other articles, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required applies. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the article "There is no deadline" that you link to above, not about BLPs. Did you read it? Neither did I past the first paragraph which showed me you had not read it:

"We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established.

Wikipedia is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. And if someone beats you to it, makes that first place in the edit history, so what? Merge in what you have and turn a stub or whatever into a good article. Wikipedia is not a competition either.

Above all, creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea. There really are no points for being first; being the author of the best and most neutral content will earn you far greater kudos."

(Emphasis added.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already in mainspace, so the quote isn't particularly applicable. I have established with the sources I posted above that several reliable sources consider the book significant enough to review and analyze it. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the majority of the so-called references (none of which is in the article and therefore open to challenge) are themselves fringe books of questionable notability. The article is simply an unreferenced re-hash of self-published fringe ideas that almost nobody has shown any interest in. andy (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the NASA source nor Jonathan Vankin's book (which is published by the reputable publisher Citadel Press) can be credibly claimed to be fringe sources. That some of the other sources may themselves be fringe sources is no reason to disregard these two high quality sources. Cunard (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article. I have used only sources from high quality publishers and reputable authors. The rewritten article clearly establishes that the subject has received significant critical attention from several sources. Jonathan Vankin's book in particular provides five pages of analysis about the book that could be mined for further expansion of the article. Cunard (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably notable nonsense. We're the place where people look for NPOV material on things like this. Utter impossibility is not a reason for deletion, as long as people publish about it DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 27 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 // 00:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Cunard and reasoning of DGG. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am agreeing with the other "Keepers": notable nonsense. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 13:30, 5 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.

[1] "Yeovil-born author Rich Hawkins marks release of debut horror novel The Last Plague". www.westerngazette.co.uk. Retrieved 5 March 2015.

[1]