Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partycat[edit]

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

Looks like a non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep : soft local news coverage here and magazine coverage here here (although with everything online these days, what even is a magazine?). While current article can be toned down (are they literally "rioting across the roads"?), it's plausible that there is more reliable coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. With respect to the sources noted above, the first is InsideHalton. That is web site for a group of local community newspapers which includes the Burlington Post which is community paper for this band's home town. Community newspapers are not useful for notability as they will write about almost anything local. The second link is marginally better, but it is simply an interview with one of the band members. The band may be notable in the future, but at this point, they have self-released one EP, and nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with deletion. The article makes no real claim of notability and certainly lacks any verification. Maybe later, not now. JodyB_talk 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High Pressure Iron Phases[edit]

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

Some kind of original research. Article was already speedied once [1] as redundant to the "Iron" article. Now re-created by a new user, but still no references, no explanation of the significance of this concept. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Doesn't seem to be anything here that can be used in iron, allotropes of iron, or [hexaferrum]]. Possibly create a redir to allotropes of iron from this and the previous article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was ready to say keep by the title alone, but there is no directly related material here outside of the bare definitions. I don' have any idea how to use these articles that are not what they are about. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's a lot more information here on high pressure forms than in the allotrope article and the subject is clearly notable, as a scholar search shows. Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the information, although it may be that getting past the "powerful implications" of the "mysterious features" is making it difficult. This article is not about the topic, it appears to be just two vague definitions followed by some essays that can't find the topic. While the subject may be notable, I can't see keeping an article on the subject that is not about the subject, for example the opening sentence mentions relevance to deep Earth, but the mentions of the core that follow are not tied into the surrounding text with geology. Maybe I am wrong and you can explain it to me, but, again, even if the topic is relevant, the article should be about the topic, not just random strings of an undergraduate essay. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is already covered at Allotropes of iron and other articles; nothing here seems worth merging. -- 120.23.4.196 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge about one sentence with Allotropes of iron. The discussion about triple point(s) is a possible thing to merge, but it is probably even better to rewrite this and delete. There are too many uncertainties mentioned in the article to make most of this worth using. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aayudham (2016 film)[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:NFF. Too soon for an article. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable future film. Would say redirect to director's page, but that too is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinesh; both created by same editor, who says he is a castmember or other associated person and created to publicize). Note: I'm the PRODer that nom mentioned. DMacks (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's more likely that the film is just not notable at all. Clearly fails WP:NFF. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:CRYSTAL way too early, no current notability Deunanknute (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that sufficient sourcing is available. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the film arrives and there are references, let's talk. The author has said on another page that he is a young (age 17) actor starting out, and assures us he will be notable in the future. Fine, but I think we can wait until then. ubiquity (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per above - Way TOOSOON!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Maconie[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable person. EnergemDealer2415 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More probably a very notable popular broadcaster across many different media. So you created an account just to delete this article? Immediately after a spate of single-account vandalism? Ah-ha. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to shut everyone up? Are you the president of his fan club or something? You've defaced the record with your deletions. --Stuart Maconie's Dad (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. An important and popular broadcaster, commentator and writer on a range of topics, with an extensive career and many publications. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's also just been reported for vandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- ....and blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ghmyrtle. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known broadcaster in the UK. Added in case help is needed to nullify the threat created by others. Philip Cross (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This person is very notable. Also, given the nominator's questionable page creation and edit record (just see their talk page for proof of this), I recommend a speedy keep. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Possibly a non-notable person" with no explanation is a weak rationale for starting a deletion discussion anyway, but it's ridiculous when by all signs notability is well established, as in this case. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Habbaniyah[edit]

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

Unsourced sensationalism. Can't find reliable sources for this event; it might be related to what the Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars calls the "battle of Donkey Island", but the figures don't match.

(Finding sources is hard because there actually was a Battle of Habbaniyah -- in 1941.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether or not there's a topic at the heart of this that's worth having an article on seems little relevant to the article we have. It's titled the Battle of Habbaniyah, but it discusses military action in Husaybah, halfway across the country, and not remotely "on the outskirts of Ramadi" (unless there's another Husaybah I can't find information about...). Regardless, I think the best course of action here is to blow this up, making room for an article about the actual 1941 Battle of Habbaniyah (should someone choose to write it). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 23:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edoardo Piazzolla[edit]

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

Lack of available sources. I searched for "Edoardo Piazzolla", Epix CO2, and Epix Bass. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - Mr X 21:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A musician with stage name "Epix"; an article contributed by WP:SPA account User:Epix1993. The article claims the subject has prominence as a member of a band, but even if the band's notability was established (they have no article either on the English or Italian Wikipedias) this would be insufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. As per the nominator, my searches are finding nothing under the various name variants which indicates notability. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability certainly not established. Fylbecatulous talk 12:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Marian (baseball)[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) 21:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this article does satisfy WP:NCOLLATH based on reference 5^[1] of the article which confirms from a Nationally distributed Newspaper (LA Times) that he received the award of All-State Honors in 1999 from the CCCAA which is equivalent to a National Award since California Community Colleges play under the CCCAA versus NJCAA. It would be comparable to awards being given out to NAIA student athletes versus NCAA athletes. Hard Core Baseball (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/13/sports/sp-46248

all state does not equal all American. I don't see any validity in your argument. Was he named THE best player at his position that year? No. John from Idegon (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you can discriminate against California Community Colleges when they elect to play under the CCCAA rather than the NJCAA. That same discrimination is not encountered with playing in other international leagues as indicated in WP:GNG. And since he did in fact receive the highest award given to a player in the CCCAA, I am unclear as to how you came to the conclusion that he was not named the best player at his position that year. Hard Core Baseball (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His community college award is a regional honor, not a national one. We dont confer automatic notability based on that and his career accomplishments dont meet notability standards. Spanneraol (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly to try to equate an "All-State" honor to a national award. Question: is this the same guy? Same name, same location, same age... – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable former college and minor league baseball player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or professional baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL (never played in regulars season MLB game). Insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. And for the record, no, junior college "all-state honors" are not the equivalent of a major national college sports award. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASEBALL. Being all-state in junior college does not make him notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranushka Fernando[edit]

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

Claims to notability are solely for having collaborated with other people; none of the given sources are specifically about the subject, and could not find any that are. Fails WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article fails to establish the subject's notability. It fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC. It has already been previously deleted and there has been no substantive changes since then that support the subject's notability.Dan arndt (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, whilst there has been a series of edits to the article undertaken by Sundaytimeseditor (who I suspect based on his edit history is likely a sockpuppet of Musiclanka) none of those edits demonstrate how the subject of the article, Ranushka Fernando, is notable. They all seem to relate to his input into a music video, "E Kale: The One" (which in itself does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS). The only other point raised is that he has established the ICC Campus, which is a non-notable computer training facility (despite its fancy name). Given the tenor of the article and the recent series of edits I would have to question whether this is WP:SPIP, on behalf of Ranushka Fernando. Dan arndt (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patipan Unop[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I have looked at all of them, and they all definitely fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What have you looked at? At least 9 of the 11 players is (or has been) playing in TPL, a Fully Professional League! SveinFalk (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Players fail WP:NFOOTY as have not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNGfor any of them. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least 9 of the 11 players is (or has been) playing in TPL, a Fully Professional League! You say one thing, but then add a link that says you are wrong! When you don`t know anything about Thai football, you should stay away and keep to stuff you actually knows! SveinFalk (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alll - They all fail WP:NFOOTBALL as they haven't played in a Fully Professional League and they don't have any international caps either. IJA (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again someone who say one thing, but add a link that do not agree with you! Why?? SveinFalk (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alll per above Inter&anthro (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NONE - At least 9 of the 11 players above is, or has been, playing in Thai Premier League which is a FULLY professional league according to Fully Professional League!! But I`m sure Sputnik will remove Thailand from the list too, as he did with Cambodia both last week and last summer, because he personally won`t accept the external sources!SveinFalk (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SveinFalk: The claim that any of these players have played in the Thai Premier League is not supported in reliable sources. If you, or anyone else for that matter, can provide them, I'll happily withdraw the relevant nominations. You may also want to dial back the aggression a little. Assuming bad faith, as you've done here, can be construed as a personal attack. Since you've already been warned for harassment once, there's a very real chance you will be blocked if you don't turn it down. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Cambodia was removed (again) was because it had not been discussed on the talk page. If it had then the obvious fact that neither of the sources provided confirmed FULLY professional status. You also seem to be confusing the that premier league with division 1 as there are no reliable sources in the articles to show the people being discussed ever actually played in that league. Fenix down (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is the Thai Premier League fully professional? Because a quick search suggests that at least some of them did play in the Thai Premier League, and at least one even seemed to have played for the national team. If this can be confirmed, then those particular players shouldn't be deleted. Those that aren't, well, they should be deleted. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, TPL is FULLY professional and that`s also agreed on Wiki (see the list mentioned several times above). I`m also 99% sure that TPL Division 1 is fully professional. There`s also several fully professional clubs in Regional League Division 2. 9 of the 11 players above has 1 or more external links confirming they is, or has been, playing in TPL. The 10th is an upcoming youngster who played several matches for a National youth team (U19)last season, and the 11th is playing in D1 (a possibly fully professional league). What is a "reliable source"? I would say that offical club pages, official league pages, various sites for newspapers/magazines is reliable sources. Of course, this is Thailand so links are in Thai, not English. In my view, Sputnik is only trying to ruin Thai football on Wiki, as he clearly don`t know anything about it. PS! I have NOT edited any of the 11 players above.SveinFalk (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is fully pro (there is no consensus that the first division is though), however there is nothing in any of the articles above to support the suggestion above that one or more of them has a tally played in he premier league, as opposed to only being attached to a club. Furthermore I see nothing to suggest that any of these players has played senior international football (again not just having been called up to a squad). Translation sites are notoriously bad at translating that so if someone with more knowledge can add sources to indicate either of these things have occurred in the career of any of these players then I would consider that player notable per WP:NFOOTY. Again SveinFalk, there is no campaign against you or that football articles. Please reread the articles and the relevant guidelines noted. It will be very clear where the articles fall short currently. If you can address this, please do. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don`t you try to delete many of the players in this 1st team squad? Liverpool F.C.. Many of them has never played in a fully professional league, and is only attached to a club in a fully proffesional league. So, if 1 player is attached to Chonburi in TPL and another one to Liverpool in EPL, and none of them has ever played in a fully professional league, then BOTH should be deleted from Wiki, or BOTH should be allowed to have an article on Wiki.Do you agree? SveinFalk (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid afd arguement, everything you've just said is accurate. If there are other articles you feel are not notable you are free to nominate them for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not on Wiki to delete other editors articles, not as long as the info is correct anyway. I started to edit Wiki because there is very little info in English about Thai football, and I know many foreigners in Thailand look at Wiki for info about their local club, league or info on Thai football in general. Because "project Thai football" mostly is done by foreigners, and the info is mostly in Thai, the work is not done in a short time, so most articles might be "under construction" for a very long time. Since you are here to delete, then you should start at the top and work yourself down, not the other way. Start with players at the best clubs in the world. They are the ones who are most visited, and then doing most harm, in your view, so start there. I`m sure you`ll find at least 1-5 at every EPL-club. SveinFalk (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:V, it doesn't matter whether you know articles to be notable and / or correct. this needs to be clearly verified to reliable sources to satisfy the relevant guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "reliable source" in this case, when you and Sputnik don`t accept OFFICIAL clubpages, OFFICIAL leaguepages and pages for football newspapers/magazines? SveinFalk (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those would be fine, but there are no inline citations confirming that these players ever played for the club in an FPL match or in a senior international. Whilst this isn't essential, when a source is in another language and script, it is much more helpful to make it abundantly clear where the reference is. At the moment, if such links exist in articles, because they are not referenced to the relevant body of text, it is proving impossible for people here to confirm notability. Could you please edit the articles to show which sources confirm notability, paying particular regard to the fact that these sources must clearly indicate that the player has actually played FPL or senior international football, not simply been contracted to an FPL club or called up to a senior national side. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - All articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amateur or professional, it's still in the top divisions. J 1982 (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please re-read the discussion, there is no evidence provided in an understandable manner to suggest any of these players have actually played in a top division. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Union Advertising Agency[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. None of these "references" (most of which should be wikilinks) mention the subject of the article. ubiquity (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The nominator is right, most of the "references" are to completely unrelated Wikipedia articles. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, it definitely is not-eligible for inclusion at this time. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Also note WP:42. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Energy Forum[edit]

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

Second nomination after previous deletion in 2013. Just a battleground between promoters and detractors, with no external coverage to anchor it : Noyster (talk), 13:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only plausible RS I could find just mentions it in passing. @Noyster, you may wish to also nominate or append founder Harold HyunSuk Oh (whose page history incidentally is a mass of COI & SPA begging investigation). Pax 07:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two of the main Wikipedia principles are neutrality and verifiability. One of the key principles of neutrality is to present facts, not opinion, and that the facts are verifiable. The facts presented in this article are up-to-date and can be verified using the many references provided. The official website for the organization, www.worldenergyforum.com, has a wealth of articles showcasing its validity. As for its notability, the article is about an organization that has held events that have been featured in news broadcasts and papers. You can also find a number of articles on the wikipedia page for verification@Noyster.Price0125 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Price0125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. Wikipedia is committed to providing facts. The articles listed on the website point to the accuracy of what's written, which satisfy the requirements of maintaining an organizational page on Wikipedia. There are 12 external links listed on this organization's wiki page and the "news" page at the organization's website lists over 25 articles and videos noting the organization's activities and influence. These article alone provide sufficient evidence: 1. October 22 declared World Energy Day 2. World Energy Forum 2012, Dubai Oct-22-24 and footage from the organization's events can be found here. DC Independence (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)DC Independence (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— DC Independence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Neutrality of this article is said to be in question. After careful review I find no evidence to prove the the information presented in the article is not factual. Actually, I found many videos of reputable news reports that show the validity and lack of bias in the article. Please take a look at the following links to said news reports. News Report of World Energy Day News Report on World Energy Forum News Report on World Energy Forum 2 News Report on World Energy Forum 3 News Report on World Energy Day Spellman1963 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Spellman1963 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually nobody has "questioned" either the neutrality or the factuality of the article, since neither are criteria for notability in the first place. (The following-a-script pattern on display by the SPAs here has prompted me to open a sockpuppet investigation.) Pax 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of notability at all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 16:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with major reservations - I can find four reliable sources surrounding subject from 2012 regarding its event in Dubai (see this Google News search. The article as is goes way beyond what these sources would provide, but I'm not convinced its non-notable. It would need to be massively cut to reflect qualified resources. Jeremiah (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Start over again without the wall of non-reliable sources and puffery. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .The article follows all wikipedia principles. Price0125 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Price0125 has already !voted.

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haley Denise Laundrie[edit]

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

Non-notable university student that fails WP:NMODEL. Original article was cookie cutter (maybe bot) generated by a now banned SOCK as part of a big link building effort. Updates include a couple WP:ROUTINE local person wins award mentions in local news and a pageant focussed site of questionable sourcing (appears broken on my screen). An attempt to redirect to the article on the contest as usually is done with these articles after discussion was reverted with a misleading edit summary so it gets an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only quality resources is WP:ROUTINE. Jeremiah (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If she wins Miss USA, then perhaps it can be revisited. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article subject has already won titles in two different years and now also will be in the Miss USA a major pageant. There are several reliable sources cited including two different newspapers. It certainly is not the norm as the nominator suggests that that these state pageant winners are redirected to the state pageant "after discussion" There was no discussion on the talk page article or anywhere else that I am aware. This article subject achieves notability and passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tonie Chisholm[edit]

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

She won a contest with 10 people in it. They don't even hold the contest annually. Total pop 57,000 people in the Cayman's (its essentially a small town). Can't find any mention of her outside winning this one event. Fails WP:NMODEL. Meets WP:BLP1E. An attempt to redirect to Miss Cayman Islands was reverted, so here we are. Delete or redirect to Miss Cayman Islands. Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like she's done more than just win a pageant based on this [Google News search]. However, all articles are from the same news outlet (Cayman 27), so I'm not sure we get to WP:N. Jeremiah (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she will participate in both Miss World and Miss Universe. it is like the World Cup in football or the Olympics for an athlete. Notable. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, or redirect - As someone who will represent her country in Miss World/Miss Universe (which are BIG events) that is usually notable enough for a very basic stub article such as this, despite my personal opinions. Mabalu (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article subject has references to three different independent reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. THey include a television station and a magazine plus one other news source. The Cayman Islands is not a "small town." It is a British Territory that has its Miss Cayman Islands titleholder for this year competing in the Miss Universe contest as well as Miss World pageants. As far as those two international pageants are concerned the winner from the Cayman Islands has an equal chance to win the international titles as well as any other contestant. The population of the place you came from or the number of contestants do not matter. The article subject has achieved notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is faulty. I am very aware of what the Caymen's are, and the winner of this little contest is effectively the winner of a small town contest held off and on in some years between a few girls. I think it was this one who got "best legs" among 10 girls. Seriously, winning a looks contest where only 10 people compete and maybe a several thousand might be eligible in a given year (unmarried, appropriate age range, resident there) is just not a big accomplishment. In theory the winner COULD win the worldwide contest but they never place very high. Legacypac (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Cayman Islands, where a large, well-done table covers everything notable. (None of the prior winners have their own articles, despite some placing higher up in the rankings of subsequent international contests). Pax 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 16:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, in the alternative, redirect to Miss Cayman Islands. Neutrality^talk 06:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin George[edit]

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

Best sourcing I can find is here [2] a WP:ROUTINE " local person wins award" story in her hometown paper. She is a pharma rep and occasional model. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:BLP1E etc. No more notable then the winners of these events [3] Legacypac (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previous incarnation of article with badly pointed references, plus polluted with unsourced garbage, so the deletion nomination is perfectly reasonable, but hopefully these problems have been fixed as per WP:HEYMANN. An article here, another article here, photo in Baltimore Sun, another article here (which doesn't mention pageants but is consistent with data from other articles). The town of Casper, Wyoming is a mid-sized city of 50,000 people, and KG gets coverage there, not just for the pageant, but as a dance coach who, unfortunately, still blushes when complimented. Multiple independent reliable sources suggests she meets the general notability guideline, but the article should remain short and avoid insertion of junk like her hobbies or high school grades.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, mainly because Tomwsulcer has cleaned it up enough that it's just about tolerable. Plus, there is precedent for articles on Miss USA delegates - there are articles for most of the delegates between 2001 and 2012, though a random check through these brought up quite a few virtually unreferenced BLPS and unsourced garbage about how Binkie Booboo wants world peace and Mary-Sue-Jane Doe likes basketball and kittens.... Mabalu (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per the research work done by Tomwsulcer. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New re-write and clean-up by Tomwsulcer makes article more appropriate. As per Ejgreen77 article passes WP:GNG WordSeventeen (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough ICA Sports Football Club[edit]

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

I don't believe that this club meets WP:NFOOTY - the league they play in is not on of the WP:FPL leagues Gbawden (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - not playing in a FPL is not an issue, notability is determined by meeting WP:GNG and/or playing in the national cup competition - this club meets neither. Giant Snowman 14:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - this football club has historical importance. When the club was formed, Italian migrants accounted for 10% of Peterborough's population and set up this football club as part of the ICA who are a charitable organisation (Company Charity Number: 290845). There is therefore historical importance attached to this club. The ICA Foxes Development squads (part of ICA Sports, described in the article) play against Premier and Football League clubs too. The PDFL Premier Division is also at Step 7 of the National Leagues System. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icasportsfcraph (talk • contribs) 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plays below the level deemed appropriate for an article by WP:FOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not Delete~~ - my argument for retaining this article is based around its historical significance. Even in 1996 the Peterborough Italian community and the associated community groups were deemed relevant for research paper discussion (https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=paper27.pdf&site=11). The football club was integral to the migrant Italian community which at one point accounted for 10% of the population of Peterborough -- Icasportsfcraph (talk 17:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That paper could help to establish notability for the general topic of Italians in Peterborough but has only the most cursory mention of this football club, so doesn't help to establish notability there. Oh, and while it's permissible to add further comments, there is no need to restate your "do not delete" !vote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for adding "do not delete" again. I'm new to Wikipedia and indeed to html or coding etc. so you can imagine that this page took me some time to create, hence my defence. I would also add that our Club President Paul Canoville also makes us notable. -- Icasportsfcraph (talk 21:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Club has not competed in the national stages of a cup competition, so fails WP:FOOTYN. The level at which the junior teams play is not considered relevant for notability purposes. Youth teams must satisfy GNG directly (see Senrab FC). The club president may be notable in himself, but notability is not inherited and there is nothing shown to indicate that the team have gained significant reliable coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. IJA (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys should be encouraging people to add content, not discouraging. Teams such as Peterborough Northern Star and Peterborough Sports are allowed pages but they play in the FA Vase not the FA Cup, so your criteria are not universally applied. My page isn't poorly written and if you measure the number of hits it receives I'm sure you'll see there is a demand. We have over 500 registered players & staff across all sides and I'll add some sources from secondary media as further evidence of notability Icasportsfcraph (talk 14:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can add sources that would certainly go a long way to establishing notability, but note that they must be from reliable third-party sources (major news sites or equivalent sources with a known reputation for editorial fact-checking) and cover the club in depth i.e. not just mentions in passing or listings in directories of clubs or results. Hope that helps. Oh, and by the way Peterborough NS do compete in the FA Cup. If Peterborough Sports don't then potentially their article should be put up for deletion too, but that's a discussion for elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. - Mr X 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odoo[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable CRM/ERM application suite. I am unable to find any meaningful sources beyond press release generated coverage and trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator- Mr X 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Odoo is the new name of OpenERP (it is a redirection). A Google search gives more than 600k results for either Odoo or OpenERP, from thousands of sources (keep WP:NTEMP in mind). A search for books gives hundreds of books about OpenERP/Odoo. Google Trends shows the history of the project's name and popularity. More random examples: Odoo was recently selected in the top 5 project management tools for 2015 on opensource.com, in the Best Linux and Open Source Apps for the Enterprise in 2015 of linux.com, nominated for the Deloitte Technology Fast 50 2014. The product also won a BOSSIE Award two years in a row, under its former name, OpenERP, in 2012 and 2013. According to WP:NNC and WP:ARTN, the above should be sufficient to establish notability, even if the article contents itself should certainly be improved. As a comparison, here is what Google Trends says about popularity of OpenERP vs Openbravo. By that measure, the Openbravo article and a great many other ones would have to face deletion as well? Odony (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Mercer[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, doesn't have significant coverage nor has she done anything significant LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. Coverage due to relationship with notable actor. Other than that no substantive parts just bit roles here and there. Not seeing much in the way of modelling either. Cowlibob (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Actor found to be non-notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares Jamal Cherry[edit]

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

Alleged to be a non-notable actor, editor disagrees and request afd rather than csd, so here we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Fails WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Reads like a fluff actor bio piece. Nothing at Google News or Google Books. Of three IMDb credits, two of the films are in post-production. Article claims subject "came to prominence playing the Evil Guardian in the horror film Lake Eerie", but the movie's Twitter page shows no indication that the movie has been released. That makes the claim of significance a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Another claim "In 2015, he will star in the film musical comedy Bar Songs." IMDb lists his role as Backgammon Player, which does not sound like a starring role. Of the five references provided in the article, Backstage.com is an actor resume site that does nothing to establish notability, Dejascene appears to be a search engine. And of the remaining three horror film-related references, none mentions the subject. Far too soon for this person to have a Wikipedia article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable actor as above, no WP:RS. Without any notability this is nothing more than an advertisement/promotional material.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there's no promotional content here, the article's 100% encyclopedic - if you believe otherwise, go ahead and remove promo parts from the article, I don't see any 183.207.229.18 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)— 183.207.229.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - These allegations about the actor not being a notable actor are false, we have worked with this actor on several films, broadway shows, and fashion shows. It's true that he has two films in post-production and some of the information on his page can be altered or changed with the assistance of his production team. We will have someone make altercations to the article. Tavares has done alot of work in film and is considered one of the next best rising stars. TashaSmitty — Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC) — TashaSmitty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The actor has a reliable source here and I will find others and changes were made to the page. This page should not be deleted. http://www.bronzemagonline.com/up-close-with-rising-actor-tavares-jamal-cherry/

What you consider notable and what Wikipedia considers notable are two different things. The notability guidelines are either the general notability guideline or the entertainer guideline. You need to be sure that whatever is added to the article clearly establishes the subject as notable based on either of these guidelines. Interviews are considered primary sources and should not be used to establish the subject's notability. You must use resources that are secondary sources independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a promotional site and we don't write articles about rising stars—we write articles about existing, well-documented ones. And frankly, his "production team" is strongly discouraged from editing since they obviously have a conflict of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per tashasmitty, the actor's notable 183.207.229.18 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)— 183.207.229.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This isn't a vote. You need to be able to argue for inclusion based on existing Wikipedia guidelines. Saying the subject is notable is not the same thing as demonstrating that the subject meets existing notability guidelines. Closing admins are not typically swayed by single purpose accounts and single purpose IPs suddenly taking interest in an article. Typically when that happens it is indicative of a promotional campaign. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this isn't a battlefield either so calm down... and there's nothing sudden here, we always took interest in the article except there was nothing about it that required attention... so stop belittling our contributions and read WP:CIVIL 118.169.168.157 (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)— 118.169.168.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am perfectly calm, and there is nothing incivil about my reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this Taipei, Taiwan IP has been blocked for 60 days by ProcseeBot as a blocked proxy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Actor and WP:GNG. Associated image (uploaded by SPA) lacks proper licensing and will have to go as well. Pax 21:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted - A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toiran.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

New website, seems to soon to establish notability. Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see it was speedied a month ago. Withdraw if someone will speedy again. Legacypac (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no obvious claim to notability at all and nothing in the way of reliable coverage out there Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Music Entertainment[edit]

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

This is a new article that has seen an edit-war break out over CSD tags. I'm bringing this to AfD as it's a good way of making a deletion "stick" and also because there is a small claim of importance by reference to Swings (rapper). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company. reddogsix (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No indication of significance, speedy tag removed several times. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Can not find any major releases or artists associated with them. JBH (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene S. Walker, Sr.[edit]

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

Local rancher lacking non-trivial support. Only references are obits and related to his being voted local "business person of the year" in Laredo. Nothing in article that stands out. The Legacy section are mostly vanity items. reddogsix (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prominent rancher with holdings in five Texas counties and in Chihuahua, Mexico. Other business ventures including oil, gas, real estate, and banking. He was a school board member. His death made the front page lead article in the Laredo Morning Times on January 21, 2015. Other sources include two livestock publications cited. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Which of these items support notability? I am not trying to be a pain (or funny) by saying this, but given these are obits, it appears he is know for his death and nothing else. reddogsix (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The support notability because they are significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the basic criteria for WP:N. Obits by reliable sources are no disqualified as reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. There are articles from 2000 (reprinted 2014), 2003, and 2014 too. As I noted above, his death was the page one top news story in the Laredo Morning Times.Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of in-depth independent coverage. Besides that of the Laredo Morning Times mentioned above, even the Livestock Weekly coverage is acceptable as a reliable source as it has editorial control over its content. [4]--Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly all of the the in-depth coverage is from obituaries. OhNoitsJamie [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|

Even if that were true - it's not - there is nothing in WP:GNG or anywhere in WP:NOTABILITY that "bans" significant coverage from independent reliable sources that happens to be obituaries as evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply These are non-obituary articles cited:

(1) Elizabeth M. Pease, "Modern Times bring changes to ranching", Laredo Morning Times, August 24, 2014, Walker Supplement, p. 7D, reprint of a November 2000 article.
(2) "Chamber names Gene S. Walker, Sr., as Business Person of the Year". Laredo Chamber of Commerce. June 22, 2014. Retrieved February 3, 2015.
(3) "Gene S. Walker, Sr.: Business Person of the Year": Countless people impacted by the family's contributions", Laredo Morning Times, August 24, 2014, Walker supplement, p. 2D
(4) Gabriela A. Trevino, "Walker family built cattle ranching empire", Laredo Morning Times, August 24, 2014, Walker Supplement, p. 6D
(5) Colleen Schreiber (May 29, 2003). "Lifelong Rancher Attributes Success to Unity of Family". Livestock Weekly. Retrieved February 3, 2015.
(6) "Gene Walker". zoominfo.com. Retrieved February 6, 2015.
(7) Gene S. Walker, Sr., Glimpses of Life on a South Texas Ranch, Aguilares, Texas, December 2013, p. 7.
His death brought a page one-headline article (not an obit per se): Philip Balli, "Gene Simeon Walker, Sr.: Local rancher dies: 'He was known for the love he had for his family'," Laredo Morning Times, January 21, 2015, pp. 1, 12A
There are obits cited of him, his brother, sister, and brother-in-law. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article needs the tender loving attention of a gas-powered chainsaw, but the subject appears to possess sufficient local notability to have the tallest building in town named after him. Pax 21:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click4Support[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is sourced only to a press release and some directory listings. McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable, plenty of hits on Google, but they are a press release and a ton of forum posts (mostly about scams) Deunanknute (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The number of reports suggesting that this company is a scam when I Google them is concerning, but I can't see any news reports about them. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's an LA Times article about how the company uses misleading sales tactics, which I've added to the article, but that seems to be it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The LA Times story directly addresses the subject. (This article should be kept even if it superficially appears to be a WP:Coatrack for critics - because said criticism is what has generated Click4Support's notability/infamy in the first place.) Pax 21:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP requires multiple reliable sources. --McGeddon (talk) 16:32, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also requires some depth to the sources, similar to WP:Coatrack. Deunanknute (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dribbble[edit]

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

Alleged to be A7 (CSD), but looks to be in good enough shape that with a rewrite it could be a decent start or stub article. I'll leave it to the community to decide the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11 (Unambiguous advertising) and G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement). --Hirolovesswords (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No one but the nominator argues for deletion. (Non-admin closure)--Antigng (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 Undershaft[edit]

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

This is a proposed plan that has not yet been submitted for approval. It is nothing that exists in any real form. Deunanknute (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the standard Wikipedia guidline for an article then the article will need deleting --LegereScire (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not. See WP:Crystal. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – There is always a lot of discussion about new skyscrapers in London. If and when this gets financing and an application is made, there will be many articles about it before it's finished. Right now it is in the conceptual design phase and already it has multiple independent sources, in the article and also this one, from Architects' Journal. So technically it probably meets the requirements for GNG. Hence keep. Still, I'm reluctant to say keep outright because there is no guarantee that this design will ever get built. It's very common for the design to change, usually for financial reasons. OTOH the original design is part of the history and could feature in an eventual article. So I don't know. It's still very early, but the design does exist. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be significant coverage even this early. That's not really surprising for a project this size. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whether this project comes to fruition, there is already sufficient coverage out there to pass WP:GNG with no doubt much more to come as the project progresses. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:LISTPEOPLE requires that the person meet our notability policies, which require more than passing mentions or just one source. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahman Madani[edit]

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

All of the sources provided are non-reliable. insignificant coverage, PR profile, public directory and some link just list the name of the subject in theirs teacher/news presenter list. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with CSD G5. Created by the blocked user User:Hukgiol for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aldota) - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having tagged the article G5, but I've reverted this non-admin closure because a CSD tagging is insufficient to resolve the issue at AFD (sometimes CSD requests are rejected, for example). If the article is actually deleted via CSD, then it's entirely acceptable to wrap this up as a housekeeping process (I do so frequently myself). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have in fact declined the speedy nom. While it does appear to have been initially created by a sock, other users acting in good faith have edited it in the intervening months. So it's probably better to let the article stand or fall on its own merits instead of just zapping it because of the initial creator. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have seen a few passing mentions in multiple reliable sources. I would support a redirect to List of British Bangladeshis, with a short description. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not enough independent notability - and what is claimed is IMO WP:UNRS. I.e., Muslim Aid's history of back-door financing of Hamas renders it a less-than-credible source, and said questionable sourcing features heavily in this article. Pax 21:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that these[5][6] sources are unreliable? Please learn the meaning of redirect and notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, neither of those are actually in the article at present; secondly, single-sentence in-passing mentions in large tomes do not constitute notability. (Lastly, please learn the meaning of WP:Battleground.) Pax 06:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not mentioned on article, that means it has no existence? Passing mention do constitute notability, they would pass the requirement of a redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Bangladeshis is merely a list highlighting notable persons with their own articles; your "trivial mentions" (often call passing mentions) would not confer sufficient notability for a redirect to that article if they are insufficient to confer notability to a stand-alone article. Pax 10:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't know the meaning of redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense to redirect a non-notable name to a list where the name will NOT appear. Pax 11:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know about WP:LISTPEOPLE? One reliable source is enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aretha Henry#Personal life. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin 'KJ' Jones[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Non-notable. Little media coverage, except from his wife's website. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aretha_Henry#Personal_life. His wife is notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and I can't really see where he's actually been the focus of any coverage in independent and reliable sources. He's mentioned in the wife's article under her personal life, which is really all he warrants at this point in time. He's won an award, but it isn't major enough to warrant keeping the article on that basis alone. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jones is his wife's engineer and producer.He is credited as such in Allmusic guide and Discogs. The references are listed.Le Creator (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Le CreatorLe Creator (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be verified that he works for his wife in this capacity, that does not automatically give him notability. Just being on a crew for something doesn't give notability- there are a lot of engineers and producers out there, some of whom work on notable songs and projects. What gives notability is coverage that focuses on Jones himself as opposed to routine listings as part of a crew. Basically what we're looking for here isn't whether or not he and his job can be verified (although that is important) but whether or not he is notable, which is very much in question. Can you provide coverage (news articles and the like) that focuses on Jones? Brief mentions in relation to his wife and routine database listings that have him as part of the team that worked on an album or song won't really cut it, not unless these brief mentions or database listings show that he's won a major award. (Think stuff like Grammys, MPG Awards, and similar.) The only thing with the database listings would be that the database would have to be one that isn't easily edited by the subject or by others, as we can't (for example) use IMDb to source awards on Wikipedia for this very reason. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references that focus on him Le Creator (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Le CreatorLe Creator (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Creator: Unfortunately they're all primary sources at best, meaning that they were released by Jones or someone that is affiliated with him. What the article needs are sources like newspaper or reliable website articles that cover him like in the following two examples: ([7], [8]). The only source that doesn't look to be primary is this blog article, which is considered to be a self-published source and cannot show notability per guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a newspaper reference. It contains a quote from Kevin Jones talking about a studio that he was appointed project coordinator by the mayor of Jackson MS Frank Melton. Le Creator (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Le Creator[reply]

That's not really usable either since it's him being quoted about something else. It shows that he was involved with the studio but doesn't show how he is independently notable of the project. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article shows that he is an expert, the go-to guy for all things studio related which is why he was chosen by the mayor of Jackson. The YouTube links prove this also. I think that his studio of the year award further proves it. Also, the production, recording, mixing and mastering that he has done on his wife Aretha Henry's albums can't be discounted. The fact that he has artists who travel from as far as Dubai to record with him can't be discounted either. Le Creator (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Le Creator[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 07:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aretha_Henry#Personal_life - substantial coverage of subject at reliable, independent sources. His notable work appears to be tied to a single artist, hence the redirect. By the way, discogs is a wonderful site, but it is user edited, and as such isn't reliable (although because of their user-vetting process, I find it accurate). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made in France[edit]

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

Not a dictionary. So obvious no need for an article Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please bundle your closely-related AfD nominations in the future. It completely blows the log page up and wastes everyone's time who either wants to comment on the lot or has to close the conversations. Your 15ish nominations here could have been two. Deadbeef 07:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [9], [10]. Sure more can be found. JT_dale^Talk~ 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on that already for the pageant winners, twinkle does not bundle, and directly bundling does not add the deletion template to the pages or notify the creators. The three Made In articles should be considered separately. I found one, then found more via a template, but there are some legit ones like Made in the USA so these should be considered on their own merits. Legacypac (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could be a notable topic but nothing in this article provides supporting evidence of that. There are minimal standards for an article to exist and this article does not meet them. There is almost no content here and nothing which stands alone to make an article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:ASZ. It's a notable topic with plenty of coverage, that it's a stub isn't a reason for deletion. Vrac (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An interesting twist on If a tree falls, as there are obvious sources out there (NPR) to support an article, but someone has to actually step up and write it. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morris Gleitzman#Published work. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Overboard[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.

Note: My PROD was reverted with an edit summery of "true reason for prod appears to be infobox deletion wish". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Related AFDs, with similar nomination assertions, and prod removals, involving direct calls to {{infobox}} are:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool, Australian play
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Overboard , Australian play
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Manning
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Abbett (closed keep)

--do ncr am 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing, including this one, use {{infobox book}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, below. Please discuss accusation of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book is probably more notable than the play. HighBeam search produces an article focused on the book and its author in The Herald [11]; an article about literacy education, using this book and its sequel (Girl Underground) [12]; an article describing some political controversy about this book [13]; and another article mostly focused on the sequel [14]. Sydney Morning Herald has an article about the book and the play [15]. A GScholar search produced many results, which I haven't yet had time to pore through. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At related AFD, Arxiloxos noted the article could be refocused to be about the more notable book and got around to concluding "Keep". Another editor there also voted "Keep", commenting: "Arxiloxos's sources indicate the book, if not the play, is unquestionably notable. If the play is not, then it can still be discussed within the context of adaptations. If the play is notable (as the offline reviews may or may not indicate), then the article can address both topics until/unless they are capable of being spun off and disambiguated. But I don't see any outcome that leads to deletion of content at this title, nor any reason to contemplate a TNT-style purge of the article history." Which applies here too, IMO. --do ncr am 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morris_Gleitzman#Published_work. Not a particularly notable work by the looks of it, but a plausible enough search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- A redirect would work for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's this page at AustLit. The play has been performed, as documented at AusStage. And the event item there links to info on reviews published:

Article: Alexa Moses, Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 2005, 13
Article: Suzanne Brown, Review, 23 July 2005, 3
Review: Stephen Dunne, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 July 2005, 27

I don't have access to the reviews, but this may be significant coverage.

Also, the deletion nomination shows no evidence of performing wp:BEFORE; the nom spends more time/text complaining about removal of the prod, which was by me. It's not "bogus" to point out the apparent purpose of removing infoboxes the nom does not like. The nom was indeed working from this worklist of articles having "direct calls" to infobox template, which included Not in Print (since speedy deleted) another Australian play article. That article included use of {{infobox}}, which is fine IMO, but apparently was the offending flaw; the nom then found way also to Boss of the Pool and to Boy Overboard, created by same editor, both now at AFD.

On this I prefer Keep, but Merge is also possible. Other Australian play at AFD has more performance and review info. --do ncr am 03:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: It seems that you need to be reminded that you were warned "not to approach discussions confrontatively [sic]... not to comment on contributors rather than content, and not to assume bad faith."; and that User:Gatoclass similarly told you: ""you are hereby reminded that comments on contributor rather than content may result in the imposition of sanctions". Yet you continue, despite being told otherwise, to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. The nominated article, by the way, uses {{Infobox book}}. Your posting about this nomination at other nominations, and vice versa, also consitutes canvassing, about which you have also been previously warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article uses {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to this article was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted, just above. Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this page was created as it was, about the play and not the book, was as an excuse for a Currency Press employee to place a link to their shop. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well like I responded to same comment at related AFD, I don't think the article creator (who has acknowledged association with the publisher of the play) is making a mint from promoting and selling the play. I rather AGF and assume they believe in the play and in general in Australian modern play-writing, and are interested in contributing in Wikipedia too which is great. :) What about the reviews, do you have access any way to see what they cover about the play itself? --do ncr am 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As was noted by 2 other editors at related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss of the Pool, the article could be revised to be ab out the book, first, then cover the adaptation to play, leaving possibility of split to the future. In any event, that keeps all content, and there is no reason to delete content. I already "voted" Keep above. --do ncr am 06:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morris_Gleitzman#Published_work. Pax 22:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest recording artists[edit]

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

Nominating this for exactly the same reason List of richest actors was just deleted. It's a single-source list with material taken entirely from Wealth-X (a subset of their database of high net worth individuals sorted this time by a particular profession) -- the reliability of which hinges on it being picked up as a listicle by mainstream sources (like the other citation, a Billboard post). I don't know if we ever determined if it's a WP:COPYVIO too, since it lifts the list directly from another site. What we'd need in order to keep this and not move it to "Wealth-X's list of richest recording artist" is some other sources who have compiled such a list, in which case this page would have to be WP:TNTed (or something close to that). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting trivia, perhaps, but this topic runs into inevitable sourcing problems. Richest according to whom? Carrite (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia and possible copyvio. Keeping track of people's bank account balances is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMStellation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, only reported in the media for a few days in January 2011 after the company issued a press release (source of much of the reporting it appears) announcing an ambitious and unrealistic project. No updates on the company website since April 2011. Reads like an advertisement for a nonexistent product. Alexbrewer ^{talk} 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE—concur with proposer, the article appears to be based on a one-time event where this company apparently tied up some broadcast spectrum with the ITU, and needed a powerpoint design to support that application. I can find no more recent info to improve the article, nor any info that the company exists as an actual go-forward development entity. (Full disclosure: I have attempted to improve the article in the past) N2e (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Satellite constellation. WP:TOOSOON. Pax 23:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st NVS Awards Brazil[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject, which appears to be a self-published source located at http://nao-vivo-sem-series.wix.com/--nvs Article was previously prodded, but an IP removed the prod notice and maintenance templates without explanation.[16] AussieLegend (✉) 02:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotion. The web "magazine" hosting this brand new awards list fails notability very quickly and there is no indication the list is significant in any way except to the dude who created it. Somewhat of a shame that an IP stonewalled what would ordinarily be a PROD or a speedy delete. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If an award for American film generated by a non-RS American blog wouldn't be notable, I fail to see why awards from a Brazilian blog would be. Pax 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising of promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancemarketing[edit]

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

Delete: Written as advertising. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Gasparyan[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I came across this via a request at WP:REFUND asking for the page to be retained. From what I can glean from this article (which is extremely promotional) Gasparyan did serve as a professor at multiple colleges and universities and he did publish some works, but the problem here is that it's expected that most college professors will publish works and/or write for textbooks. It's definitely a "publish or perish" sort of world. The article claims that he served for about a year as the "Head of the Department of the Armenian Question and the History of the Armenian Genocide" at the Armenian National Academy of Sciences (if I understand the article correctly). I can't find anything in English to support notability or any of the claims in the article, so it's possible that coverage will be only in Armenian. (Although it's always a little worrisome when someone appears to have no coverage in English, as there's usually at least a little chatter somewhere about notable figures. It doesn't mean that he can't be notable, just that the chances of the claims bearing fruit drop quite a bit.) I'll drop a note at that project and ask someone to come in and help look for sources. No opinion on this as of yet as to whether or not he passes WP:NPROF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I'm not finding anything at the official website for the National Academy that mentions Gasparyan. I do understand that he died in 2013, but if there are plans to publish his work posthumously then there would be some mention somewhere about him. I did, however, finally find this, which says he was Director of the Institute of History. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't stand it, so I've cleaned the article up dramatically and essentially re-wrote the piece. It's still unsourced, but it should at least be easier for incoming editors to read. You can find the previous version here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what is currently available he currently fails WP:BLP, and cannot be verified for WP:NPROF.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's only one borderline claim in the article that might meet WP:NACADEMIC but can't be verified. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for the cleanup, Tokyogirl79, it helps make what's claimed and what's sourced here much clearer. What's claimed: that he worked for a scientific institution eventually becoming a mid-level manager, and that he published stuff. Neither of these things is sufficient for notability per WP:PROF: working for a national academy is not the same as being honored by membership in the academy, chairing a department is not the highest level position at the academy, and we need evidence of impact not just of publication. As for sourcing: it's pretty much nonexistent, so the article fails verifiability and would have to be trimmed back even more severely if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I wasn't sure if his position would make him pass WP:PROF since I'm not terribly familiar with all of the ins and out of that policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Delete. "Publish or perish!" is WP:ROUTINE for professors. Pax 23:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saumya Mullegame Herath[edit]

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

Delete: Does not meet WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look like she's done anything of note. The book only has less than a handful of hits, and one seems to indicate that it is free till Feb 15th, suggesting very new and self-published. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Services Limited[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of coverage & notability of Computer Services Limited[edit]

According to WP:CORPDEPTH: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

Which the article conforms:

The article contains a reference to Bangladesh Govt. Site for the list of CAs^[1].
The article contains a reference to Bangladesh Computer Society (BCS) Site^[2]. Which is regarded as the leading professional and learned society in the field of computers and information systems in Bangladesh
The article contains a reference to Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services (BASIS) Site^[3]. Which is the national trade body for Software & IT Enabled Service industry of Bangladesh.
The article contains a few news links including one of the most notable newspaper in Bangladesh named Prothom Alo^[4].

--TareqMahbub (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Certifying Authorities (CA) in Bangladesh". Retrieved 2015-01-08.
^ "BCS Membership of CSL". Retrieved 2015-01-08.
^ "BASIS Membership". Retrieved 2015-01-08.
^ "National Web Portal Testing". Retrieved 2015-01-08.

Delete Can't find significant coverage. BASIS has about thousands of members, membership of BASIS or BCS do not warrant an article. – nafSadh did say 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. Only some trivial mentions in news articles and other lists of BSC/BASIS do not establish notability. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another local IT company. Pax 23:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. —Cryptic 05:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyon[edit]

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

The only source in the article is an interview with the book's author, which is an invalid primary source. I couldn't find reliable sources to get this article past any of our notability guidelines. The article lacks a "reception" section, so it doesn't even explain why it's notable in the real world. Delete or merge to a list. Antigng (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it a bit odd and surprising that a user with no previous edit history has managed to get the AfD process down and nominate this article for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I used to edit through my ip address, such as Special:Contributions/180.172.239.231, Special:Contributions/114.81.255.37, Special:Contributions/114.81.255.40, Special:Contributions/218.81.14.78.--Antigng (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Antigng: Well im glad you made an account then, and welcome to Wikipedia. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder why he didn't do so earlier, given how active he has been on AfDs. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters, I have been unable to find anything useful and seeing that it is all un-sourced information in the article for the most part, I feel the character summary on the characters list article is adequate. I would however, oppose the deletion of Haruhi or Yuki for the time being as they are better sourced and have more potential. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm witholding !voting for now, but could someone check Japanese sources, interviews, and the like? It's entirely possible that there could be coverage out there, particularly in Japanese. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look but didn't see anything at first glance. If you can find some reviews of the series and they mention Kyon and what is unique about this character ect... that counts as outside third party reliable feedback. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. As much as I feel he 'deserves' one, the evidence just doesn't support him having his own article. He doesn't even have his own article in the Japanese Wikipedia, where he is presumably more notable. Bensci54 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I deliberately waited to see what happened as it struck me that this could be notable, however notability is decided by sources and reception and we don't have any here. Perhaps one for the future burn at the moment this page does not satisfy the criteria based on its current state. SephyTheThird (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Antigng (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This page since it has had no significant edits in a few years which leaves me to believe that no one is interested in working on it, leaving it to suffer from its entirety being plot summary with only one reference. Be it notable or not, for this reason I'd have to say redirect to the parent list. —KirtZ^Message 20:27, 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, Antigng (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't understand why this has been extended again when there is a clear consensus to redirect (which essentially is the same as merge). Surely this is a clear case of snow?SephyTheThird (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: I found out the issue, this has been relisted twice by a non admin. On top of that being relisted by the person nominating this for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters. It's not clear that this character has sufficient independent notability (or sourcing) to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 15:49, 4 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violetta Degtiareva[edit]

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

It appears the subject was active only in the ITF and apparently did not attain the notability threshold necessary for ITF players. Indeed, the sources given both imply that she was fairly mediocre as professional tennis players go and her record backs that up. She clearly fails WP:NTENNIS. However, addressing whether she meets WP:GNG. There was some small amount of coverage in relation to her sudden death. Given that she had little coverage before and that the small amount of coverage was only in relation to her sudden death and physical beauty, I think that WP:BIO1E can be invoked, meaning she fails WP:GNG as well. PROD declined without explanation by an IP editor. Safiel (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As tragic as a sudden death might be, I'm going to have to vote delete. There does exist a myriad of sources but after going through quite a few of them, it seems to me that the news articles are giving heavy coverage to her death, with only passing mentions to her tennis career. This would conflict with other long-standing principles: specifically that Wikipedia cannot give undue weight to any one event, thus conflicting with our neutral point of view policy (as well, see the guideline on "Subjects notable only for one event"). To quote from the New York Post article on Degtiareva: "The Russian beauty's most notable career moment came when she reached the quarter-finals of the ITF-Turnier pro-circuit tournament in Turkey, CEN reports." (emphasis mine) Her most notable career moment was her reaching the quarter finals. She was ranked 1,084th in the world at the time of her death and never won a major title. As ignominious as this may be, she likely would not have gotten the coverage she got had it not been for her death. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for tennis players and death doesn't make someone notable. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanpreet Singh[edit]

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

I had this as a prod but moving this to a XFD-it seems to be a auto bio of a unnotable person. (as a side note-pages that link here seem to go to a sports person so keep that in mind for this AFD if someone does a page for the person with the same name) Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -A7-an unsourced autobiography by Amanpreet13 -that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angilo Freeland[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. Freeland was a non-notable person who committed murder and was killed by the police. Yes, there was news coverage at the time, but simply being in the news doesn't make him notable. There is a lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources that isn't related to this one event. The pro forma "investigation by the Dept of Justice" that someone will likely try to claim gives this notability is not notable. The investigation found no wrong-doing. Freeland fails WP:PERP as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - delete per ONEEVENT. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT. However, the incident itself was quite notable locally (Central Florida) and had a fair amount of national attention for a couple days. This page is linked from Contagious shooting and the incident is a great example. I had previously considered creating an article for the shooting of the police and then the search/shooting of Angilo Freeland. If such an article is created in the future, this page would be an appropriate redirect. AHeneen (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the case and actually not so convinced this is a good example of contagious fire. But that's a debate for another place. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sud Nivernais Imphy Decize[edit]

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

Non-notable sports club. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this which indicates they play in the 'League of Burgundy' which appears to be an incredibly low-level, regional league. No evidence of notability, past or present. Giant Snowman 13:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think. They played quite recently in the CFA2, the nationally organised fifth tier, and reached Round 7 of the 2010–11 Coupe de France, the round at which the Ligue 2 clubs enter the competition (the big clubs come in at Round 8). While the consensus that club notability comes with playing in a national cup is inappropriate for France, where any registered club may enter the Coupe de France, I'd argue that reaching Round 7, i.e. getting through the regional qualifying rounds to the round that the second-tier clubs come in at, is a rather greater achievement than just having played in the English FA Cup, which does generally confer notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Struway, the club have played in the national rounds of a national competition, so satisfy WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The club did reach the 7th round of the Coupe de France in 2010 ([17]) which is an achievement that in my opinion makes the club notable (there is significant coverage in reliable sources of that cup run). Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why would we consider removing articles for clubs who've participated in national competitions? Nfitz (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because there is no evidence of notability in the article. If you want it to be kept, please add reliable sources indicating notability. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Struway2 here did play in the 2010–11 Coupe de France upto the 7th round a national competition passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eshun[edit]

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

Incredibly incomplete WP:BLP about a footballer that fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, appearances in a WP:FPL (Süper Lig) confirmed by this. Other claims made in the article can be verified by sites such as this (confirms he played for Kotoko in Ghana) and this (confirms he played for Sarawak in Malaysia). Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, player has played in multiple FPLs, so meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY as he played in a Fully Professional League. IJA (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Player clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Coulld User:Mr. Guye explain the logic behind what appears to be a very bizarre nomination? Nfitz (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY has played in Fully Professional League.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - Nothing needs deleting now that Stalwart111 has massively improved the article (Thanks Stalwart111), and obviously as we all know schools are kept per schooloutcomes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qingdao No.1 International School of Shandong Province[edit]

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

Fails WP:ADVERT and is very much promotional, not a notable school either for Wikipedia. May possibly exist on Chinese Wikipedia, but I am not sure. ~~JHUbal27 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12- End of discussion, so please close it administrators. Thank you. ~~JHUbal27 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've removed 90% of the article including the copyvio and promotion. Is now simply a stub about an international school (high schools generally being considered notable). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111 and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible source, when the school was just built in 2010: [18]. And FYI zh:山东省青岛第一国际学校,산동성칭다오제1국제학교 (Chinese name-comma-Korean name) was deleted by G11 there (they don't have WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to STAR One. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by STAR One[edit]

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

I will believe that the former TV-station is notable, but to my opinion a list of programs broadcasted by a no longer existing TV-station is not notable. Side note: completely unsourced The Banner talk 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this lists notable programming that was original to this notable channel and so is a standard list in this subject area and an index of articles by a significant shared feature per WP:LISTPURP. I can't see how it's relevant that it no longer operates. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have a purpose when the TV-station was still there. Now it is just an indiscriminate list hanging in the air. The Banner talk 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you're saying that you can't see a purpose to having articles about subjects that no longer exist? Is that really your argument? postdlf (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think that indiscriminate, unsourced lists of programs transmitted by any station are already non-notable. Unfortunately, I have consensus against me. But here we have the situation of an indiscriminate, unsourced lists of programs transmitted by a station that no longer exists, leaving the list in fact without parent. So I have asked the community to voice their opinion. The Banner talk 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The parent article is STAR One and continues to exist even though the subject no longer operates. The fact that these notable television series were original content broadcast by that channel continues to be a significant and defining fact about those series (just as with List of programs broadcast by the DuMont Television Network) and one that we also categorize. "Unsourced" is still not a deletion argument. And I do not think "indiscriminate" means what you think it means (whatever it is you think it means here). postdlf (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge - Most tv programmes get merged in to the tv article - I personally see no harm in merging the notable ones & getting rid of the rest (IE redlinked ones). –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's of course fine by me, so long as the information is preserved. Whether there are enough notable programs to merit a standalone list per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT is a question of editorial judgment. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge like Davey2010 said. TV station article would be too long if we put the whole list into it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cosgrove[edit]

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

Not famous enough, and hasn't been known for over half a decade. Cosgrove was only briefly a presenter on BBC Radio 5 where he read out the closing numbers of the FTSE. Left the BBC in 2009 to become a press officer. Newssexy (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find much coverage from search to show WP:NN Chosenone Pie (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. Non-entity. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorkers (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown now. Had another dig around: only seems to have been at the BBC for a short time, then left to become a PR.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tokyogirl79's salt recommendation was taken into consideration, but nobody else supported this action. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motmot Magazine[edit]

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

Article about an apparently non-notable magazine. The only available sources are press releases and social network profiles. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I can't find anything to show that this magazine is really notable. It exists, but existing does not equal out to notability. I'd actually recommend salting this article since it's related to the article for Thomas Tomczyk, an article that has been re-created and deleted 7 times already. Since that article has been re-created so many times, it stands to reason that this would potentially have the same issue (especially if the main article for Tomczyk is deleted and this becomes the main avenue to promote the guy). As it is, the article looks like it was written mostly to name drop the author and a book he's self-published through his own company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are turning up nothing beyond PR and the usual social media; no evidence that this publication has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Islands Voice[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable publication. The only sources that I could find were trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 04:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. I found some brief mentions in other newspapers, but not anything that would really establish notability. The only thing that even goes into any depth are mentions in travel books like this one, but not anything to where it'd really firmly establish notability since travel guides are considered to be somewhat routine coverage. (Meaning that if it's even remotely visible, they'll write about it or that perhaps people can petition the publishers to include them in the books.) Now I would recommend salting this since this is related to the article for Thomas Tomczyk, which has previously been deleted 7 times. Since this article goes out of its way to give a fairly large amount of information about Tomczyk (in comparison to the rest of the article) and because if the main article is salted this will likely become a new target for further re-creation, salting would hopefully deter further attempts to re-create the article or insert information about Tomczyk on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highbeam turns up a couple of passing mentions, but I am seeing nothing to indicate this magazine and more recently webzine attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MahiFX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable WP:ORG Deunanknute (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved the nom from the first to the second. ansh 666 07:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional -- and it seems the article was deleted previously ,and still has the same problems. Or do Imisunderstandthe history? ``

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ built from PRs. Pax 23:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Scarver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable under the terms of WP:BIO1E. Dahmer and his acts count as notable; his murderer is only a byline character and therefore is not. KDS4444^Talk 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oh give me a break.. clearly notable by WP:GNG and CRIME. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, plenty of sources to be found. After all, if he wasn't notable, why would the Daily Mail and the Huffington Post, among others, write articles about the book deal he was seeking in 2012, 8 years after the Dahmer killing? Robman94 (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is most certainly a notable person. A large amount of people look Jeffrey Dahmer up on the internet, and want to know who his murderer was, just like I. This needs to stay up. KEEP IT. Ellogovna12 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Magicians[edit]

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

Non notable semi-pro basketball team that only lasted for 1 season. Note, American Basketball Association in this case refers to American Basketball Association (2000–present), not the original American Basketball Association that merged with the NBA. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are non-notable semi-pro teams:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few brief mentions in newspapers and books, but not what I would call significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I probably would have WP:PRODDED them first, and if any of them were contested, take them here individually. Since there hasn't been any keep !votes yet, they probably would have been deleted by now. Nevertheless, I took a look at each of them, and I agree with the nominator's rationale to delete. Tavix | Talk 15:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Very few ABA 2000 teams have achieved enough stability to deserve Wikipedia articles. There's very little of substance here. (Frankly, I'm not even sure one could come up with a reliably-sourced list of all the ABA 2000 teams that have existed over time. It's a bizarre league.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move with You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This disambiguation page was created after the previous AfD ended, even though the possibility of diambiguating was discussed then. As a disambiguation page, there are links to two articles where this title isn't mentioned in one and barely so in the other (the first single from an album that has yet to be released?). Neither would survive an AfD on its own (one didn't), so not sure why as a disambiguation page it's ok. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD G4. 2 links isn't enough for a disambiguation page. Snowager (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowager, if you've changed your mind, please edit your vote. Thanks! De Guerre (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Snowager, 2 links is enough for a dab, see WP:2DABS and 1000s of existing, valid dabs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, the term is mentioned in both articles now, so both entries meet MOS:DABMENTION. Nothing to be gained from deletion, potentially WP:USEFUL. If there was only one, it would be a redirect (as neither meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG); as there are 2, it should be a dab. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: each would be a valid redirect, neither is clearly primary topic, so a dab page is appropriate. And yes, two links is enough for a valid dab page where neither is clearly the primary topic. PamD 10:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Boleyn took the words right out of my mouth.--Laun chba ller 17:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess we'll keep it. I've learned from Boleyn's comment. Snowager (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per Boleyn and PamD. De Guerre (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Damergi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A smattering of poxy roles adding up to insufficient evidence of notability. Laun chba ller 00:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything by way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Good grief the commentary in the last AFD was horrifically bad-faith. I'm glad we've moved on since 2007 when new editors had deletion nominations carpet-bombed simply because they were new. WP:BITE much? Anyway, the pro-delete commentary there still basically applies today and the nomination here seems spot-on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article really should've been deleted about 7 years ago. Both nominations were correct and I agree with Stalwart111. Good thing we now know how to WP:AGF of new editors, too.--Mr. Guye (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NTEMP says "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be". I think what happened in the last AfD is that at that moment in time Ms Damergi was on a popular show and recentism took hold. Since then her career has not taken off -- there is no "sustained coverage". In addition, we can look back now with the benefit of time passed and realize that her brief peak of notability was not high. —Noah 07:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Kagame[edit]

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

Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline: Invalid criteria and Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. She is the daughter of President Paul Kagame. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Nominator offers no argument as to why the multiple examples of specific, individual coverage used as references are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Simply being related to a prominent person neither establishes notability nor demonstrates its absence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:06, 2 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) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is not inherited, sure, but that doesn't mean two people from the same family can't be notable. That's like suggesting Angelina Jolie isn't notable because that would involve her inheriting notability from Jon Voight. The titles of the news articles that give her coverage include her name. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I initiated this AfD discussion after reading the comment on the article's talkpage. Take a look at the Ange_Kagame#Philanthropy section; does it mention anything related to philanthropy? Take a look at this editors' contribution.. The account was recently used only for one article. I see this as contrary to G11. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It appears to be good enough now. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per comments here and at the DRV, the original "no consensus defaulting to delete" close is overturned, and I am closing this case as a standard "delete". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet Patterson[edit]

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

possible autobiography Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while I found these references - [19], [20], [21]. The majority of the articles are just mentions of him and not any real significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Also, the article's creator is "Patterson2929" is a little fishy and maybe COI. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Front running Australian Formula 3 driver - recognised by the FIA as a contributing series to Superlicence qualification[22]. A series previously established as being notable. Some other coverage[23]. --Falcadore (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources either are passing mentions (routine sports reporting) or don't mention him at all.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

204.126.132.231 has the right of it. None of the sources presented so far represent the kind of significant coverage we usually look for, and none have any biographical coverage at all. Even the article creator characterizes the subject (himself, to all appearances) as an "emerging athlete trying to raise profile for potential international teams and sponsors". I wish him well, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. Delete. —Cryptic 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Granolo[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Dictionary definition consisting of original research. The term is already defined at Wiktionary. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionairy. Also, did brief search and can't find any refs for this term. —Noah 00:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: ...good for a laugh but not for an encyclopedia. It's a joke. Vrac (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Primary Colours (album). Closing as Redirect - Any Merge proposals should take place on the articles talkpage, Cheers, non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who Can Say[edit]

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

Browsing Google, this does not appear to have enough supportive references and is unlikely to expand to much more than a stub anyway. Perhaps merge to Primary Colours. Lachlan Foley (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- Lots of sources out there. Also, stubs, like sprouts, can become trees. 1, 2, 3, 4 Cheers, —Noah 01:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primary Colours (album), unless article can be appropriately expanded with sources. Otherwise, nothing to see here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. There's a review of the song here, but I'm not seeing much else in terms of significant coverage to indicate that a standalone article is warranted. Gongshow talk 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://articles.latimes.com/1999/jun/13/sports/sp-46248

[CAs_in_Bangladesh_2015-01-08-2] "Certifying Authorities (CA) in Bangladesh". Retrieved 2015-01-08.

[BCS_Mem_CSL-3] "BCS Membership of CSL". Retrieved 2015-01-08.

[basis-4] "BASIS Membership". Retrieved 2015-01-08.

[NPF_LINK_2015-01-08-5] "National Web Portal Testing". Retrieved 2015-01-08.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]