Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RfD. I am saying this in 2022 and not 2015, because this AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly processed, and never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Decision Point[edit]

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

The article is just a redirection to Common_Open_Policy_Service which is not a synonym for PDP, for example in XACML. --Marco74 (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Decision Point and Policy Enforcement Point are general concepts and terms and should not be redirected to specific protocols. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NG Media Server[edit]

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

I could not find reliable, independent articles that establish notability. Article reads as promotional. Deunanknute (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional article with no coverage outside of the subject it is covering. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unencyclopedic topic, lack of secondary sources giving coverage to it. "Streaming server" would be notable, as it's a technical topic of some interest. "Apache" would be notable, as it's a major web server with vast secondary attention paid to it. This is neither. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not really promotional, its like this page [[1]] it's a streaming engine solution/sofware / I will try to find more references of this software and update this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockall Smyr (talk • contribs) 17:32, 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. and salt Missvain (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha JamVwal[edit]

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

Non notable. Article was nominated for deletion earlier, concerns which were expressed last time are the same as now. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Like the last 2 times this has been AFD'd and deleted... No evidence of notability!, Seeing as it's been created and deleted twice this should be Salted. –Davey2010^Talk 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been created with all reference link attached to it and all articles suggest this is a notable person. Please feel free to google the person as-well.Cpavlankar (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has one source which is to a Wikipedia article so technically it's not a source, The only thing this article suggests is that she's not a notable person at all, I have googled her and like yourself I've found nothing, No Sources = No article. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

check reference links its updated Cpavlankar (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources in the article is reliable, so it fails WP:GNG. It doesn't make any specific claims of notability either.--Antigng (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is the exact same as it was during the previous AfD. Unless improved, it fails a plethora of policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I went thru the soucres, the creator added, majority are from Youtube, one is a Wiki article which makes ZERO mention of the subject, one is Shiksha.com, Zoominfo, not reliable and then there is the blog. Fails WP:GNG.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsrikanth05: -Any reason it was not G4'ed? Last concern was notability but G4 was applied, it still is eligible for G4. Well aside speedy, I feel like BEFORE was not performed in this particular case. I did a simple search using INDAFD search engines, and found these, tons of them, -Times of India, Times of India-2, Times of India-3, Times of India-4, DNA India, DNA India-2, DNA India-3, Economic Times, iDiva.com, -MORE. Are you going to withdraw your nomination now? Or expand deletion rationale to combine TNT? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Are "Nisha JamVwal" (no space) and "Nisha Jam Vwal" (space) the same person? Is she an "interior-architect" or a fashion designer or both? Pax 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think, yes. Both are same. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:52, 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 snow close, delete. Regardless of whatever type of article this is, it's fairly clear that the consensus is to delete. At best this is a WP:ONEDAY type of scenario where this is just something someone came up with on a forum and at worst it's a WP:NOT type of deal. Either way, it doesn't seem to belong on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of sitcoms which feature actors holding the Nintendo 64 controller wrong[edit]

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

Put aside your reaction to the title for the moment, because it's not exactly what it says on the tin. What this really is, rather, is a metacommentary about the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the topic described in the title, sourced only to a Facebook post which wrongly suggests that we do. This is, put simply, not the kind of thing we should have an "article" about — and it shouldn't be repurposed as what its title actually suggests, because that's not the kind of thing we should have an article about either. Taking this to AFD only because there's already a declined speedy in the edit history — I'd have speedied it straight away otherwise. Delete with TNT. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and nothing suggests this topic could be reliably sourced. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated... and 1000 internet points to Bearcat for the meta-meta-commentary. —Noah 20:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails policies and not WP:Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagikCow (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (1st choice). Delete (2nd choice) --Tgeairn (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not article material. I could see an essay of this nature being created but not under this title.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 02:33, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality in the Arab world[edit]

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

All information already covered in LGBT in Islam and LGBT in the Middle East articles. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just the "B" in "LGBT" that features as the topic of other, more comprehensive, articles on the subject. There doesn't seem to be anything specific to bisexuality that requires a separate article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as last time (see my old comments at the AfD and article talkpage). This isn't bisexuality in the Arab world, it is LGBT/homosexuality in Islam, which is covered elsewhere. There is no content to make an article on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Duplicate. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:31, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Moffatt[edit]

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

Unelected political hopeful planning to stand for election in 2016. There is no indication of notability and the article was created by someone with an apparent (though denied) conflict of interest. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN and speedy deletion candidate - although not so nominated because this has already been proposed for deletion (and contested by the author). See the talk page for discussion with the author - they Really Want the article to be kept but have offered nothing to justify it. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (Note: I was made aware of this AfD by a note on my talk page, presumably because I was the original PROD-er.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia's criteria for notability. She sounds like an interesting person, and maybe if she really does run for office in 2 years she will become more notable. And of course, if she wins election to the state senate she will automatically qualify for an article. But merely saying that you'd like to run for office, several years from now when becomes possible to actually run - that is not enough to qualify for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really an article but text of a campaign card. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SNOW. Plenty of WP:NOT and WP:BIO issues. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Yellow Group[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Page is referenced solely by primary sources and stock portfolios. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This company is listed on the London Stock Exchange. Natg 19 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -No longer dependent on primary and affiliated sources. I have added on there few secondary, independent and reliable sources found on HighBeam. Hope, it should be OK to help subject meet the WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently it is on the LSE main market. We have always considered that notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 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 nomination withdrawn due to an editor's meritorious service in content and referencing salvage. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anesa hanafy[edit]

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

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

Nominally an article about a film, what this does as written is to start with a single statement asserting that the film exists, followed by a "cinematographer's perspective" shot list of every individual scene in the film, often carrying original research interpretations of the scene's meaning — and then climaxing with a summary of the overall "main points of the movie". This is much more of a POV essay than an encyclopedia article. Delete unless it can be comprehensively rewritten as a neutral and properly sourced article about the film (I'd have speedied it if I could squeeze it into any of the known speedy criteria, it's that bad.) Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sound, rewritten article wouldn't be bad, but it appears that Anesa hanafy is one of the 80-odd filmes by Egyptian comedian Ismail Yassine, shot in 1954, when Egyptian film production was high quantity (Yassine seems to have shot 14 films that year). Unless this was a specifically important hit of his career and is credited as such in secondary sources, no use to keep it. Ilyacadiz (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyacadiz: An actor or industry being prolific is not a deletion criteria. Notability for film (even 60-year-old Egyptian film) is through coverage and we have plenty of secondary sources. Please revisit the now improved article. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilyacadiz: Was quite easy to determine Miss Hanafi as listed among the most important 100 films in the history of Egyptian cinema.[2] In his book Dream Makers on the Nile, author Mustafa Darwish called it Ismail Yasseen's "most famous and funniest film".[3] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the original article's format and sourcing issues, this film topic easily meets WP:NF and many attributes of WP:OEN. We can always encourage further improvements, as Mada Masr calls it one of Egypt's cinematic gems that had no equal until 1987. I personally took the painful mess brought to AFD, trimmed away stuff per MOS:FILM and did some expansion and sourcing. Sheesh... there were plenty of book sources treating the film both substantively and significantly, and being originally poorly written by a noob was a reason to correct, not delete this topic. It could use more work, sure... but deletion? No. It's a keeper. Bearcat? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said right up front that it could be kept if it were repaired. Which you've done, so thanks — this will now be withdrawn. But your comment seems to be based on the mistaken premise that if this got deleted in its original form, then no new replacement article about it could ever be created — and thus we'd have to keep it in its original form, no matter how shitty that was, just because it might get someday replaced with a better article. But that's not how things work on here: we have a principle called WP:NUKEANDPAVE, by which an article as irredeemable as the original version of this was can get thrown in the trash can without prejudice against the future recreation of a good article about the same topic. Yes, you did good by salvaging this as a keepable article — but my flagging the original form of this article as not up to a keepable standard was not an error on my part. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Corner[edit]

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

~~So there is notability here-but has been unsourced for years. A userfied, or maybe a redirect even to something possibly? Wgolf (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Looks like some sources have finally been added for notability.Wgolf (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:59, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University Network (TUN)[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. Sources are to one FOX news article and a press release. FeralOink (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→ Hello FeralOink, There are multiple sources, one being NECN - a major news television network owned by NBC. However, I didn't realize that one of the links had gone bad, but It has been replaced and all the other links are working. Is there something more specific you were looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TUNdiscounts (talk • contribs) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TUNdiscounts, there are many other issues, such as accuracy, missing information and ambiguity. I have listed my concerns below.

Accuracy- See InFocus® Announces Sale of The University Network in 2006. TUN has been extant for much longer than the WP article says ("launched in 2011"). Here it says that TUN was founded in 2003, Big Network On Campus, TUN Has Them Tuning In.

Ownership- Who owns the company? Scott Goryeb? Peter Corrigan JD, formerly of Submedia and Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP? If so, please state the CEO's name in the article. How many employees does TUN have? What kind of company is it, e.g. an LLC, S-corp, something else?

Ambiguity- Where is TUN located? New York City or Memphis ("Based in Memphis, Tenn., The University Network (TUN) is a leader in campus communications, offering a Web-based plasma screen messaging system to reach students at educational institutions. The narrowcast communication systems are placed in high traffic areas such as student unions, recreation centers and dining facilities. A large format plasma screen displays university information and commercial messages, utilizing advanced Internet technology to communicate with this very mobile and hard-to-reach audience. The University Network currently has more than 100 installations across the contiguous U.S.")?

Is it an app or is it hardware?

I only got 26 search results from Google when I checked on it. That doesn't seem notable for an e-commerce company to me.

Do you need to declare a COI, given your user name of TUNdiscounts as author of this article titled, TUN? I'm not making an accusation, merely inquiring.--FeralOink (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

→ Hello FeralOink, Thank you for your comments. I will update the Wikipedia page. TUNdiscounts (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by Fox News and NECN are sufficient to establish notability. There is also brief coverage by NBC News. The creator's COI doesn't affect notability. Pinging @Graeme Bartlett: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked that coverage in at least two independent sources supported the topic, showing that it passed WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising. I would even be willing to consider G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Does anyone find it odd that the primary advocate for this article is User:TUNdiscounts? Hlevy2 (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tone can be fixed via editing, though, and a COI is not a sufficient reason to delete. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADMASQ. Pax 01:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'd never have guessed that students spent 30% of 545 billion dollars a year on things including haircuts without this article to repeat its source verbatim to us. Haircuts. Who knew? —Cryptic 00:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furvah[edit]

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

Relatively very young singer, bogus claim that his songs gone hit, no reliable source found to show notability and coverage of his songs. Only self published blogs etc. Self promotional sites(Facebook and Twitter) are shown in External links, simply fails in both WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, unduly promotional, and the author has a history of writing promotional articles on subjects of dubious notability, likely as a paid editor. Huon (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, obviously nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Bordering on A7 speedy-deletable. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough swag yet. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is not established. Fylbecatulous talk 16:01, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esoh Paul Omogba[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minko Zhilkov[edit]

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

I put a prod tag just now-but upon looking over this-a afd might be better, notability is not listed anywhere. Wgolf (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:A7. With playing history, and no sources, this article makes no real claim to importance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Soccerway indicates that he has only been an unused sub. Fenix down (talk) 20:49, 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 redirect to Sajid Yahiya. Missvain (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IDI - Inspector Dawood Ibrahim[edit]

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

Upcoming film that has not yet begun shooting, does not meet WP:NFF, deproded without explanation or modification, would support redirect/userfication BOVINEBOY2008 16:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sajid Yahiya : Principle photography of film is said to begin next month. There already are some sources that make a geniune case of GNG. Redirect it to Director article for now and revert it back to standalone article next month when filming begins. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Temporary Redirect to filmmaker Sajid Yahiya. As we have multiple sources speaking about the production, we can undo the redirect as soon as principle filming begins. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per the rationales of Anupmehra and MichaelQSchmidt. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sibel Meriç[edit]

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

Unotable singer/model from what I can tell. Really not a lot of info about her. Wgolf (talk) 15:53, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik Thakur[edit]

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

BLP on an Indian civil servant that has done some poetry. Article was created by subjects son. Nominated for speedy deletion under A7, but speedy removed several times. Speedy deletion declined, but article was BLP-PRODed by declining admin. Article dePRODed by creator, although you can question if any reliable sources have been added. Recently some private snapshots of diplomas and what-not have been added as references. Searching for "Ritwik Thakur" and "ঋত্বিক ঠাকুর" gives no impression of notability. Delete, fails WP:BIO. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted.He is one of the renowned persons in West Bengal.His contribution to literary world by this time has already reached quite a remembering place for Bengali poetry and people will come to know about him when they try to do so.The references for genuineness of this article have been placed without bias and are based on documentary evidences.As such,authenticity of this article must not be called in question and should be given a due place in this encyclopedia.No snapshots of personal diplomas have been added.The certificates which he has received from World Peace Thinkers and Poets Meet 2010 and Bishnu Dey centenary seminar for his contribution have been given.The award of Raja Ram Mohan Roy Puroshkaar he received as the Best Bengal Poet in 2005 has also been referred. --Ritiman 15:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritiman Thakur (talk • contribs)

Delete I'm sorry, Ritman, I know your father is an important person to you, and you have written this article with love and respect. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and it has criteria for what should be included here. The main criterion is the general notability guideline which states that the subject has been WRITTEN ABOUT by independent reliable sources. There are no such sources in this article. There is one external link, but it is not to a reliable source - just somebody's blog - and it does not even mention your father that I could find. He has won a poetry prize, but not a notable prize as defined by Wikipedia. There are pictures of certificates and things but they do not prove his notability. If you can find some independent reliable sources (things like newspaper articles, scholarly reviews of his poetry, etc. - and they don't have to be in English) then we can consider including him. But right now this article almost qualifies for speedy deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Regarding the nominator's comment above, I could find no mention of him being an Indian civil servant - just a poet. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have independent reliable sources (things like newspaper articles, scholarly reviews of his poetry, etc.) and as soon as possible I'll add them to the article. And with due respect to the Nominators up here,I would like to say I didn't create the article on his name just because I share a close relationship but genuinely his contribution to literary world by this time has already reached quite a remembering place for Bengali poetry and people will come to know about him when they try to do so. Ritiman 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritiman Thakur (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -What a mess!! Full of OR. Subject doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia's notability guideline ([4]). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gathered up articles of his poetry and work from newspaper,magazines,books and also reviews on his poetry and books from independent reliable sources. I would like to request all the Nominators here to suggest me how to add them or include them into the article for Unbiased opinions and approvals. Thank You. Ritiman 10:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritiman Thakur (talk • contribs)

Hi Ritiman Thakur -Please rewrite the article from scratch, and write only what has been published in these newspapers, magazines and books summarizing key contents in your own words from a neutral point of view. When you derive some contents from one or more sources, cite the same as inline citations to help understand readers where did the contents came from and subsequently verify them. You may use {{cite news}} and {{cite books}} template to convert those sources into inline citations (leave |url= parameter empty if they are offline). You may also take a look at Wikipedia's guide for referencing (in particular video tutorial). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Anupmehra -Although I've written the article in my own words and not just copy-pasting from other sites I would try to Edit it again in an objective way mentioning the specific areas of his excellence and his works including the additional references that I've gathered up from independent reliable sources. Ritiman 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the work of the subject is notable nor does the subject itself. I will be surprised if any one could find multiple reliable third party sources. The subject is not at all notable as I couldn't find any source, not even in Bengali language. The award given are rather common and non notable hence haven't got any attention from news. I think speedy deletion per A7 still applies. Jim Carter 12:17, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TrustedPeer[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Cited sources are a press release by a business partner (Cal Poly), the company's own website, and a Fortune article that contains only passing mention of the company. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -ADVERTISEMENT. Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. The article isn't even clear about what the company does: it describes it as a software company but it sounds more like a consultant firm. Lacks significant coverage; the Fortune article contains only a mention so passing that I had to read the article twice to find it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ecosia. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Browser[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT: no secondary sources and none that I could find. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~and Redirect~~ to Ecosia. The only hit I could find was [this], from La Stampa in Italian. But it looks like Ecosia, the parent app and main feature, is better known. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're aware but when an article is Merged it's automatically redirected after (The only time it is Merged and then Deleted is if we choose that option) :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, that's what I wanted to know. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, but I'm newbie in Wikipedia editing. Does it absolutely impossible to get the article published without any secondary source references? Devunion (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, Devunion, and welcome. Yes, it really is hard to get a separate article published with no secondary sources whatsoever. For the reasons, see Why we have these requirements. Basically we want to be sure that what we write is reliable and verifiable, and the best way to do that is to base it on reliable secondary sources. This is especially so for separate articles. But that's not the only way to add information to the encyclopedia. If you can improve an existing article, you can often add the information there. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ecosia - non notable software, The Ecosia article isn't perfect so imho Merging would be a better solution. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ecosia, per above; subject alone does not meet notability requirements. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecosia - as above, no significant RS coverage to establish notability of this browser independent of the parent project. Dialectric (talk) 21:10, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selling Instrumental Beats[edit]

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

Delete: Does not qualify.. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also WP:Articles for deletion/Anno Domini Beats. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references, all opinion, somewhat promotional. ubiquity (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and per Ubiquity. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DarkSideBeats. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has now been blocked for spamming: see SPI above. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It seems to be a copyvio at very first glance. Anyway, it falls into WP:NOT guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:38, 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 redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools. (Although I've voted here the outcome is obvious so I see no point in leaving it any longer....) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julius West Middle School[edit]

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

This school is grades six through eight with no clear claim to notability. Jacona (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools per longstanding consensus at AfD that articles about ordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Huntley[edit]

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

Unremarkable missing person. Believe this is a case of BLP1E - namely going missing Gbawden (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - non-notable past a single event. Deunanknute (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and event has long passed. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside of going missing and nothing exceptional about that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). Peridon (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabat shamsi[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:36, 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 delete. A7 Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cynomax[edit]

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

Delete: Fails Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:35, 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 moved to userspace where it belonged, by Deb. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Sanchez[edit]

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

Delete: Fails Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like a misplaced user page and I will move it accordingly. Deb (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brass Ring Club[edit]

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

A trio that lasted for less than a month does not meet WP:GNG. By the February 5 episode of SmackDown, source Rose had already broken away from the group. Plus, Cesaro and Kidd are no longer feuding with New Day, which is why they were a trio in the first place. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTAL come to mind as well. The first because it was created before anything was truly established, the second because it was presumed it'd become something. It didn't. That's why those policies exist. oknazevad (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for nominating this Starship, it saved me some time. The Masters of the WWE Universe article has just been deleted and it covered the same material as this article. If that failed WP:GNG then this must too.LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fail...but WEAK Keep Well really I would delete it but preserve it for future reconsideration, maybe a month or so. If it still fails, it fails. makk makk3232 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.138.7 (talk) [reply]

That would not be necessary, since unless the article was protected against recreation it can be created again once decent sourcing can be provided. I don't think it should be kept on that basis.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think BurningGlass12 would want the deleted article moved to their user page. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, premature article. Fails WP:GNG currently. Nikki♥311 05:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. a2 of te:wiki Jac16888 ^Talk 18:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GudimetlaChennaiah[edit]

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

Delete: Not written in English. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List at WP:PNT. Being in the wrong language is quite a problem, but it's fixable without deleting the page. (Of course, the people at PNT who can actually read this may find other problems that do justify an AfD nomination, but not being in English is not, by itself, a matter for AfD.)—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I'm pretty much sure, nominator has not performed BEFORE at least in this particular case, and reason for deletion given by them is invalid (see also, valid reasons for deletion). In present case, Alternatives to deletion guideline should be implemented by tagging article with {{notenglish}} template (has been done by Jakec, so we have to wait now two weeks hoping some for bilingual editor to translate that to English). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:54, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chitra Darshan[edit]

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

Tentative delete: I am not sure if this qualifies or not. Page name also was incorrect and hence I moved it to the existing name. Please check. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling for "Chitra Darshan" and "‘चित्रदर्शनी" turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Subject doesn't appear to meeting WP:GNG criteria. Actually, I'm seeing absolute zero sources on subject. The correct Hindi translation for title, would be "चित्र दर्शन". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:49, 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 redirect to List of chess software. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of online chess playing programs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of links or a directory. Yes, some lists are allowed, but not for the purpose of linking elsewhere, just other Wikipedia pages. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are allowed at Wikipedia, see Category:Lists, there are several similar lists to List of online chess playing programs, see: List of chess software or List of Internet chess servers. Thank you IQ125 (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lists are allowed, but not directories of links, which is what this page under discussion is, despite your changing the structure of it slightly. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list, similar to many other lists on Wikipedia, it is within the policy guidelines of Wikipedia. This is a new list and has the potential to expand over time, which qualifies it to be on Wikipedia. IQ125 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a list, it is a directory of links; please review the guidelines I linked to above. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I suggest we allow others to comment. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of chess software, and establish a consensus there on notability for inclusion to avoid WP:LINKFARM. A long list of redlinks referenced only by the products' websites is not a good idea: redlinks should only be included if they are supported by reliable, secondary sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge blue links per User:Dai Pritchard above Deunanknute (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess software. This list is a clear violation of WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM, with no scope for improvement. Disagree with merger proposal only because the proposed target/s already contain all the content here in some form. Reyk _YO! 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact the proposed target does not contain the contents here. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess software, no need for a merge. (One linked article doesn't exist, other two aren't actually articles about chess software, the rest already are listed. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of chess software with the intention of creating a table with attribute columns including one for "Type" eg. Online, Standalone, etc.. -- GreenC 01:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But meaningful information isn't in this article. Your dream of what the target article could look like is barely related to the anemic content of this ultra-short list. Townlake (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess software. I don't see the point of a merge. Townlake (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of chess software. Per Mike Rosoft above, nothing to merge.Dialectric (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per GreenC. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet chess servers. The "online" part of the title makes me think servers is more appropriate, but regardless this subject is not clear and certainly duplicates some weird intersection of the server list and list of chess software. There's nothing to merge. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:58, 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 St. Joseph's Institution, Singapore. (As a side note I would ask those !voting red irect infuture please state where as it makes life alot more easier and I thank ThaddeusB for adding that! - I've chosen Redirect as that's what happens with most schools - If anyone believes a Merge should take place I would suggest visiting the articles TP and to start a Merge discussion, Thanks). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's Institution Junior[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability here and no sources whatsoever other that the school's official site. Primary schools are not considered automatically notable. Squinge (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, of course. Why is this even here at AfD? Nominator is advised to get up to date with WP:OUTCOMES before they continue to do any NPP. Now we have to go through the whole 7-day rigmarole. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my imperfect knowledge of Wikipedia protocols, oh holy one, and for having had the nerve to try to help - if I'd realised we weren't allowed to help without perfect knowledge, I wouldn't have ~~fucking~~ bothered. (And it's not a new page, it's been here since 2005, ~~FFS!~~) Squinge (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my unnecessary rudeness - it was an angry response to being put down by an admin for trying to help, but I should have avoided it. Squinge (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Considering "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia" from WP:OUTCOMES (which, incidentally, says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change."), I see the article was redirected on June 4 last year but that was reverted by admin ThaddeusB the next day. With the redirection having been contested, presumably a discussion is needed to achieve a consensus now? If this is the wrong venue for that discussion, I'd be happy to be guided to a more suitable one. Squinge (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I undid the redirect because a (now banned) user had mass redirected hundreds of articles, including this. No judgement of notability went into the decision to undo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Squinge (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that primary schools are presumed non-notable in the absence of overwhelming evidence of their "special-ness." Trout to Kudpung for his grumpiness with the nominator. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: OUTCOMES is neither a policy nor an guideline, nor any other advice page, it simply documents what the community does by long standing precedent in certain cases. The actual policy, in which schools are also mentioned, clearly recommends redirect instead of deletion wherever possible. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if you could point out that policy then please, for my education - I was merely looking at the page you told me to look at. ~~Also, what should we do when an apparent policy-compliant redirect is reverted by an admin, as appears to have previously happened with this one? (Diff of redirect, diff of revert)~~. Squinge (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Already answered, above. Squinge (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to St. Joseph's Institution, Singapore unless independent sourcing is found. Those !voting redirect really should have suggested a target - you can't redirect to nowhere! - but I have now done so for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per ThaddeusB unless some one can suggest a better target. Primary Schools are generally NN, and I doubt this one is an exception. I note that the list of principals has no links. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Hernandez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:POLITICIAN. Being a one-term mayor and a council member of a city with a population of 23K doesn't satisfy the latter, and his acting credits are too sparse and minor to meet the former. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep with improvements. There are twelve members or former members of the Bangor, Maine City Council with Wikipedia article. The fact that this person is local would not matter if there is extended local coverage of his life.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even "extended local coverage", which is not sufficient IMO, is not listed in the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billy, you repeatedly bring up this tired argument. First of all, please take the time to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Secondly, all but one of individuals you mention that were members of Bangor City Council went on to become congressmen, governor, or some other higher office. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN on many levels: small-city councilman; "mayor" is meaningless since "The Mayor is appointed every year, on a rotating basis, by a majority vote of the Council" per the city website; he is not on the current council [5] so he must have served only one term or a partial term (he was elected to the council in a special election). Fails WP:ACTOR because he had only a few small roles in movies. (This may have been a paid article; the infobox listed two websites, which I have deleted; one was a nonexistent site in his name and the other was the site of a PR firm). --MelanieN (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city council members of San Fernando, California come nowhere close to being notable. This is a city with under 25,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Perrin[edit]

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

A rower who was in the Goldie crew in the second-tier boat race event, which in itself is not enough for an article. The article has been a target for vandalism for a long time with many unsourced claims added. Sources don't appear to exist to either justify keeping the article or to improve it. Michig (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Participants in this discussion might want to refer to this old version of the article rather than the current one or the ones in between with blatantly implausible unverified claims. While no better sourced that the current version, it does mention a silver medal in the 2005 World Rowing Championships, which is a far stronger claim of notability than membership of a Goldie crew and should be fairly easily verifiable. However, as this was in an under-23 event, I believe it just misses meeting WP:NSPORTS, even if verified. PWilkinson (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have the coverage needed to meet GNG and doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Even if sourced, a junior event is not enough to show notability. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 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 04:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stansoft[edit]

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

Deleted once in December (PROD) and now recreated and dePRODed. I fail to find sources that makes it meet WP:GNG. -- Sam ^Sing! 11:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superficial article, little more than an advert. There are two references but one is a trade directory and the other is little more than a link farm. Neither confers notability. The only other link is to the company's own website. Neiltonks (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a piece of software. Highbeam and Questia searches return nothing at all, Google search returns just the usual social and download sites. No evidence that this software has attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Growbag[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced. Has been for years. More importantly, it's about a bag of debris. That doesn't seem notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub is terrible. The topic is not. There are more significant discussions in books than I care to count (although it's helpful to filter out The Dark Tower references), and quite a few scholarly journal articles that discuss various aspects of grow bags, such as substrate ratios or ideal bag volumes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SC - Not gonna lie the article's in a bad way but the subject is most certainly notable, I've found a few sources [6][7][8][9][10][11] - I'll admit they're not perfect but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 15:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Merge with Flowerpot? Sources do indicate a distinction from either growing on the ground or in a rigid container, but it's not a huge one. More people would learn about them as a section in the more established (and better maintained) place. For the meantime, I've planted this in that See Also. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per GNG. In addition to the above sources, here is one from the Financial Times. Many images on Google, many papers on Google Scholar (10% of UK strawberries). The idea is even familiar enough to be used metaphorically – see the GS papers on "The Semantic GrowBag Algorithm". – Margin1522 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course, it's easily notable. And nothing at all like a flowerpot. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 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 keep. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in Germany[edit]

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

No references, no evidence that such community exists. Tagged since June 2014 Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have I completely misunderstood you? You seem to be seriously saying there's no evidence that there's a community of American expatriates living in Germany?—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I am pretty sure that persons expatriated from one country into another exist for nearly all combinations. The question is whether these individuals constitute a community which makes blips on Wikipedia radar. Anyway, references please. Please keep in mind that American military presence in Germany is a separate subject. Other than that I failed to find any significant info. Of course, I may be mistaken and lazy.... Staszek Lem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. I guess the article author meant USAmericans in Germany (lumping them with, say, Brazilians would be confusion, right?). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's about US Americans obviously. Anyway, the topic clearly is relevant. Even if it would be only about "American-German popular public people". The issue with this is that there's no references. I pledge for improvements instead of deletion. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, according to DESTATIS there were 107,755 Americans in Germany in 2013, which is among the top American populations abroad, see reference. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the article with the most basic information/facts and references. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Horst-schlaemma started with some initial work and a few references, it should be kept as notable topic. With civilian Americans (possibly), information about local integration (or non-integration) and the changing relations between Americans and Germans after WWII until today as additional aspects the article has very good chances of further development. I agree with the nominator in general, that articles are not needed for every tiny minority - but this is not one of those cases. GermanJoe (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I would also suggest renaming this to "American Germans" after the precedent of German Americans.) Pax 08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "American Germans" suggests that that article is about Americans who became German citizens, or Germans of American descent, whereas this article is about Americans living in Germany without intent to change their nationality. If the article is kept, I recommend against the name change. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, and references now added. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone feel free to add content and references, but it shouldn't be listed here anymore. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:47, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador of Iceland to Azerbaijan[edit]

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

This article was listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Sri Lanka, along with several others, this resulting in a 'Delete all' outcome, but this article was not AfD tagged so interested editors may have been unaware that it was at AfD. Therefore, bringing here to be discussed separately. Michig (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my rationale in the Sri Lanka article, non resident embassy. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good call by Michig to ensure everything is above-board; I too stand by my rationale in the primary discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion. Tavix | Talk 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 17:08, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digital call quality[edit]

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

Unsourced POV essay, mishmash of various GSM/audio topics, delete per WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOR, WP:NEO Vrac (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Pretty much impossible to source the article title, since telecom carriers have always been interested in call quality, both digital and analog. The author has complaints about GSM voice quality, but those should be added (with sources) to the appropriate articles on GSM or GSM codecs. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very general term, and the article is POV, only focusing on their definition of the term, with no sourcing. 13:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph2302 (talk • contribs)
Delete Entirely POV, reads like an essay, totally unsourced. Neiltonks (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. -Augustabreeze (talk) 19:42, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaritis Kastellis[edit]

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

There seems to be only one source available and it is merely mentions the subject. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 03:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 03:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to Hymn to Liberty. His major claim to fame seems to be that he composed the version of the Greek national anthem that is still played by military bands. I added a sentence to that effect to Hymn to Liberty, with this cite. He's mentioned once in the Greek Wikipedia, in the national anthem article, and most Greek cites on the web seem to be based on that passage. However, the information in this article must have come from somewhere. Perhaps an offline source in Greek. If we leave it as a redirect, it could be revived if someone discovers that source. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll admit to a bias toward keep regarding historical composers, but there is no entry for this person at the Greek Wikipedia, and even searching under the Greek alphabetical format (Μαργαρίτης Καστέλλης) very little turns up. I'm not !voting delete at this time, because my searching skills in Greek are surely laughable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - reasonable solution to the current lack of verifiability but possible notability. pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is my current inclination. I found a source for all the basic biographical information, which I've added to the article. Another current reference in the article (Studies in Eastern Chant. Oxford University Press, p. 205) describes him as a "master" of military music. The doctoral thesis on him does exist (I've added a ref for that). Given that there may be quite a lot more about him in Greek-language print sources, I would be very reluctant to delete this or even redirect it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers — Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's no entry for him in Grove, but still, the sources provided by Voceditenore are enough for notability, especially as there's a doctoral thesis. --Stfg (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per recently added sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established by Voceditenore. Yay! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Linda[edit]

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

non-notable WP:WEBCRIT Deunanknute (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This garnered three Canadian Screen Award nominations at the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (the CSAs are the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards), and therefore passes WP:NMEDIA right on its face — and while I acknowledge that further sourcing improvement is still desirable, as written this already includes referencing to The Globe and Mail, which is the kind of gold-standard The New York Times-level source that could singlehandedly carry notability all by itself even if there weren't any other sources already present. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for but but not recieved WP:WEBCRIT. The Globe and Mail is not an independent source for notability, as per the [[12]] you linked for reference (quote - "In their series for The Globe,...") Deunanknute (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Their series for the Globe and Mail" is referring to the series of news articles about them, not the web series itself — The Globe and Mail is a newspaper, not a distributor of web series. And web series are also subject to WP:NMEDIA, where a nomination for a top-level award is sufficient — for both the Academy Awards and the Emmy Awards, for just two examples out of many, it is standard practice that if a topic (person, series, film, whatever) garners a nomination for the award but didn't already have a Wikipedia article, then the nomination is in and of itself enough notability that a single source which confirms the fact of the nomination is in and of itself enough to start an article with. It takes more than that to get the article to GA or FA status, certainly, but the mere nomination itself is enough notability to start with — and numerous past AFD discussions have upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. The Canadian Screen Awards are not, and will not be treated as, a lower class of award for that purpose — similar past AFDs on non-winning CSA/Genie/Gemini nominees have also upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. There can be no topic whose name appears on 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (or any of its predecessors, inclusive of the former Gemini Awards and Genie Awards) but is consigned to permanent redlink or nolink status — if a topic is listed in that award's main article, then it's automatically a legitimate article topic, because we're simply not doing our job as an encyclopedia if a reader is stuck asking "okay, this got nominated for a major film/TV award but what the hell is it?" but we're not allowed to provide that information. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote refers to the articles about them, yes, but the articles will also be written by them. This indicates bias and lack of independance from the subject. I don't see anything under WP:NMEDIA about nominations, only awards recieved. Deunanknute (talk) 19:47, 22 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 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too insignificant despite the sources. Delete Komitsuki (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This web series has won awards at the Miami Web Festival and British Independent Series Awards, nominated for the upcoming Vancouver Web Festival and was featured at the First Glance Film Festival in Philadelphia. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominations don't count, obvious bias, and not a substantial program. The festivals in which the show has been nominated or won are not notable enough to justify keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.216.50 (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what "obvious bias" exists where, pray tell? Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flight: A Quantum Fiction Novel[edit]

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

Vanity-published novel of no notability. The author generated a fair amount of publicity during her lifetime, but there is no evidence that interest in the novel extended beyond her promotional efforts. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can be really, really, really trimmed down, but the Publisher's Weekly and American Library Association reviews should be enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (relate) @ 20:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the heck out of the page, but am still not convinced that the book is notable. If it were notable, it would have received more attention than the two initial reviews. As it stands, the rest of the reviews are the kind self-published authors get when they pepper book bloggers with promo copies. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, but allow rewriting in a non - promotional way. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage. Does have those two reviews mentioned above but they are very short capsule reviews (American Library Association review is 153 words). This article is an overly promotional piece created with a mass of undisclosed promotion, sockpuppetry and bad-faithed gaming of the system. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to delete this article. It is perfectly fine, though clearly "in progress" like many others. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 14:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the long list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com:
1. From Booklist:
  Prolific songwriter, journalist, and TV screenwriter Bonta turns to the novel and creates an auspicious, genre-bending parable that splices together quantum physics, crazy coincidences, the sf convention scene, and true love. Intrepid interdimensional space traveler Aira Flight is the heroine of writer Mendle Orion's award-winning novels and also the object of his most cherished fantasies. When a naked, amnesiac woman appears in his hotel room during an sf convention, Mendle rejoices that his faith in the power of love and cosmic coincidence has magically brought Aira to life. His ex-girlfriend, however, questions his already dubious sanity and investigates the girl's true identity. Yet as Aira's memory returns, so does her power, as the unlimited-energy being Mendle envisioned, to teach all those around her to create their own realities. Bonta's storytelling skills transform an outlandish New Age premise into a refreshing send-up of sf stereotypes that, remarkably, also works as an inspiring romantic adventure. Carl Hays --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
2. "Bonta's reading is clear and provides a satisfying atmosphere for this tale. Recommended for larger collections." -- Library Journal, March 2008
3. "This novel within a novel will captivate readers with a story of space travel between dimensions. Readers will feel part of the story, and will hate to see it end. You don't have to be a fan of science fiction to read this book, it's a cross-genre novel that everyone will enjoy." Ruth Augustine -- Blogcritics, May 2008
4. "Vanna Bonta's voice is entrancing - quickly making an engrossing connection between the listeners and the characters; her versatility as a voice actor brings a very realistic feel to the book. The combination of the characters, storyline, and Bonta's voice make the audio book an intense and memorable experience. Bonta's voice keeps each character completely unique, a challenge in many audio books. Flight is an amazingly positive, life-affirming book, filled with beauty." -- BostonNOW, January 2008
5. Science fiction fans need to take a FLIGHT into a very interesting novel where quantum physics meets human relationships at the crossroads of dreams and reality. The story line is fun as it humorously jabs save the world and self help books and tapes. Mendle is an interesting dreamer while Sandra is an intriguing schemer. However, it is the ephemeral Aira who steals the show, leaving readers to understand the premise that I think, therefore I create. Vanna Bonta's novel is the best look at the quantum physics universe since the Professor Q books of Trevor Hoyle. Great work that will be devoured by fans who enjoy unique science fiction. -- Harriet Klausner, March 26, 1998
See also the numerous reviews quoted at http://velocityebooks.com/quantum/flightreviews.html^{Wayback Machine}; here is their list:
1. Booklist, American Library Association
2. Publishers Weekly 6/1995
3. BookBrowser:Review, Harriet Klausner 3/26/98
4. Hawaii Rational Enquirer
5. Bruce Stephen Holms, Timeless Voyager Radio
6. St. Petersburg Times, Delilah Jones Shapiro
7. Bodhi Tree Bookstore, Catalogue
8. Midwest Book Review
9. Adventures Unlimited Magazine, Nicole Lindroos Frein
10. The Tolucan, Elizabeth McCallan
11. Sorcerer's Scroll Magazine (Fanzine)
12. The Star Beacon, Ann Carol Ulrich
13. Book Buzz Review News 12 Feb 1999
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flight: A Quantum Fiction Novel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Article already exists at Vancouver system. Title with a period at end an unlikely search criteria." NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver system.[edit]

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

No references and article doesn't really make sense. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article is a reference, and it was created four minutes ago. If the author fills in some content, it could be a keeper, otherwise it's a candidate for speedy deletion. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Speedy delete (A10) It's a typo for Vancouver system. DPRoberts534 (talk) 07:46, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alessi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Known primarily as councillor/mayor of municipality, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, elected three times as mayor of a city with a population over 100,000. That's enough to get over the notability high bar, methinks; the fact that he is not the current mayor is neither here nor there, as notability is not temporary. The article sucks, but that's not a reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - which criteria of WP:POLITICIAN does it meet? He was mayor of a local council, not a state or province and as a local politician requires depth of coverage that doesn't exist Flat Out let's discuss it 11:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the guideline does specify that the subject has to have substantial coverage in independent published sources. You know, like INTERNET TROLLS CONTINUE TO SWIPE AT WITTLESEA COUNCILLOR'S WIKIPEDIA PROFILE. (Melbourne Leader). Of course, I'm assuming good faith with this nomination, the timing of this deletion nomination could easily be coincidental. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, pretty standard fail on the WP:POLITICIAN front. Also note: [13]. Frickeg (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, doesn't seem to exceed WP:POLITICIAN's general notability guidelines as there doesn't appear to be significant media/independent third party coverage. Carrite, Australian local municipalities are generally much weaker with less responsibility than American ones; they control little more than basic service provisions (rubbish, libraries, parks, local roads, etc) with major services (hospitals, policing, transport, education, major planning and planning overlay approval, etc) provided or controlled by state and federal governments. Queensland is an exception to this rule with Brisbane City Council covering much of the population, Melbourne on the other hand has over 30 councils of which Whittlesea is one. Also bear in mind that very few Australian mayors are popularly elected, with Whittlesea being no exception, so he wasn't elected as mayor, he was elected as a councillor and appointed mayor (it is now reasonably common to have a rotating mayor in Victoria). ColonialGrid (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's a local suburban councillor who's taken on an annually rotating mayoral role three times because he's been in office as a councillor a long time. The article's non-primary sources are basically nonexistent, and this is almost inevitable for people in positions of this nature (unless someone does some seriously thorough research in local rags, and the onus is on them to do it). I don't believe council mayors selected by the council on a rotating basis are notable unless it happens to be a particularly large individual city (Ballarat is probably one of the largest that still does now that Geelong has gone to direct election), and one with a daily newspaper to provide sufficient coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a true executive, but a legislator with some executive functions (possibly mainly honorary). legislators in cities of this size are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Appears to pass our notability guidelines (esp author/academic). Feel free to improve. Thanks all who participated in this discussion. Missvain (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Florey[edit]

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

DePRODed. No further signifucant sources added. Concern was: Fails to meet criteria at WP:NACADEMIC Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvina Montrul, another linguist who coincidentally happens to be up for AfD at the same time, for an example of what I'd consider to be strong enough). And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the author of a major books. Endangered languages of Austronesia was published by Oxford University Press, and is in 375 libraries [14]. I consider that publication by itself a probably enough to establish her as an authority in her field. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 18 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 20:39, 18 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, Ethically^Yours! 07:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Kind of a borderline case. Current article seems promotional, CV-ish. But this person does do interesting work in an interesting part of the world. Possible source is an article about a linguistic study here and related articles here about the 'yeah-no' phrase, also here. A positive book review here, and an interview with her here and a mention here, and a mention here. Overall, I lean towards keep although I would like to see several in-depth sources addressing Florey's impact, and I urge whoever wrote this article to trim out all the unsourced or improperly sourced gunk.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps weakly, but I feel that two signficant reviews [15], [16], in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language and Anthropological Lingustics, are notable, and if you want a policy argument, can be viewed as meeting the clause of WP:AUTHOR 3 which requires "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Manning[edit]

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

No evidence of notability.

Note: My proposal for speedy deletion as CSD A7 ("an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject") was reverted with an edit summery of "rm Speedy deletion request with false statement of purpose. Real reason appears to be to remove the infobox". That claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 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 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the four articles listed in the above canvassing use {{infobox book}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the two Australian play articles use {{infobox book}}; Pigsonthewing's way to them was via another article by same creator that used {{infobox}}, as I already noted at their AFDs (and Pigsonthewing does not disagree). Please discuss accusations of canvassing (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found these references The Guardian, Business Wire, Business Week, Forbes, and The Telegraph. Meets WP:GNG. Article does need work but article content doesn't determine notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Forbes and a couple other similar profiles notwithstanding, I've not found any coverage that's not about his leaving Prudential. Alakzi (talk) 14:41, 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 16:48, 20 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 16:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lady Lotus. Even though the article needs expansion, it definitely meets WP:GNG, as illustrated by the subject's references in secondary sources. These references should be incorporated into the article to clean it up. BenLinus 1214^talk 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing GNG. All there is really is an announcement that he was stepping down as CEO of Jackson National Life. The same announcement in three different publications doesn't somehow add to the notability. There's not enough to construct an article. Also, I strongly suspect from prior experience that Forbes bios are submitted by people related to the subject, and are therefore useless as sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note the article appears to be targeted for its using {{Infobox}}. 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. I note related AFDs above.

Clark Manning is apparently also known as Clark Preston Manning, or Clark P. Manning, Jr., so try also:

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

There's this more recent Bloomberg profile about him

He is this person, with birth and wife info], consistent with age in that profile.

There is [17] (yep i typed that correctly, also available by Googling "Record of Society of Actuaries Clark Manning" ), a 20 page publication he wrote based on a panel discussion that he moderated, on valuation law changing. Probably more activity among actuaries.

Though I don't feel hugely strongly about it, I think keeping and developing is best. Focusing a lot of editor attention on an article because it uses a certain infobox seems crazy. --do ncr am 04:11, 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, repeatedly to falsely assert that I have motives which are alien to me. 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 12:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss accusations of canvassing and other (I disagree), at Pigsonthewing's similar accusation at my Talk page. --do ncr am 15:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 2002 profile of Clark P. Manning, Jr., at his appointment to CEO of Jackson and to board of Prudential provides details of his education, involvement in actuarial science, and more. It's a PR newswire item, so I don't mean it establishes notability independently, but it is reliable for facts to include in the article. The "Clark P. Manning, Jr." name is what appears in SEC filings and legal documents, in the searches.

Also, listed as Clark Preston Manning, he was Sr. Vice President at Sunamerica, Inc., life insurance company based in NYC, according to Dun & Bradstreet's Million Dollar Profile Google book snippet here.

I think the sources provided by editor Lady Lotus and these are adding up to substantial coverage, although I acknowledge others can disagree. It's definitely not "one event" coverage, though, and i think it adds up. I'll add some to the article next. --do ncr am 16:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone manages to provide reliable independent sources that aren't about his departure from Jackson National/Prudential, it definitely is ONEEVENT coverage. His name appearing in some list and an announcement by the company that's hired him do not contribute towards notability. Alakzi (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: expanded article I have added quite a bit to the article, bringing it from 3 sentences to more than 2,100 words by that diff. (And have added more since, see current article.) More than 5X expansion, DYK-eligible. It's slow going, as the related financial services articles are lacking. I've had to edit at Prudential Financial, Prudential Securities Incorporated, American Academy of Actuaries, Milliman & Robertson, Inc., and other articles. Currently the article shows redlinks for PPM America, Inc. and Chief Actuary which are needed articles which should provide some context/support for links from the Clark Manning article; I will start articles for those at Draft:PPM America, Inc. and Draft:Chief Actuary, shortly. And have more to add to the Clark Manning article. Help expanding is welcome.

There is under-coverage in Wikipedia of actuaries (see Category:Actuaries) and other corporate executives, maybe especially in financial industries. The importance of Clark Manning, like for CEOs and other corporate executives, is related to the importance and size of the companies they run. It's not "irrelevant" (as one edit summary at the article asserted) to describe size of those companies in their articles. It's not a terrible thing to develop financial company topics and executive role topics more. I am surprised there is no article about PPM America and that there is no article about Chief Actuary, which is a major title like CEO and COO, though obviously more salient in insurance and pension industries than elsewhere. Again, i voted Keep above, think that the article is in better/good shape, and there is more development possible, and sources have emerged and are still emerging. --do ncr am 19:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the sources are still crap. You don't seriously think a press release is a reliable, independent reference, do you? A single glimpse of his name in Million Dollar Directory listing, an article he wrote, Bloomberg and Forbes profiles written by whom? None of these actually discuss his accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't hold back! I don't really mind, but that's a bit unfair. I said above that PRnewswire source is not independent, doesn't go towards establishing article notability. But it does provide useful material for the article. BTW, I see Manning name in PPM America documents, and hope to find usable info for here, as I start/develop a PPM America article. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think the ~~article is~~sources are "crap"; i think ~~it is~~the sources are not great, but okay. --do ncr am 18:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) I didn't look at the article yet, but find strange that you were told "the sources are crap" and seem to understand "the article is crap". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, revised my comment by ~~strikeout~~ and inserted words. --do ncr am 19:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or delete, Was able to find some pretty good sources. Some seemed like press releases though. (Business Wire) Cec2020 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:34, 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. Arguments based on WP:NFOOTY aren't reckoning with the spirit of WP:ATHLETE, particularly paragraph two: "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Such sources were not brought forth to rebut the argument that the article fails the WP:GNG. Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Hadrava[edit]

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

Courtesy deletion request on behalf of the subject (via OTRS). A single appearance as a substitute in a Football league Trophy game and some pre-season friendlies barely seems to fulfil WP:NFOOTY if at all. Nthep (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Nthep (talk) 17:01, 28 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 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability point 2. Jasonakagary88 21:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one substitute appearances a number years ago (to technically meet WP:NFOOTBALL) is not enough when he comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takumi Ogawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Fish (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Nițu, amongst others. Giant Snowman 19:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given how comprehensively this article fails WP:GNG, this pretty clearly falls under the section in the leded of WP:NSPORT which says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player passes WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully professional league, but per above, only once. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While technically meeting WP:NFOOTY, the expectation that the player would build upon that notability in the ensuing 13 years has not been met. This player clearly fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the Special Notability Guideline for soccer players. We don't want to get into the game of parsing SNG standards for hundreds of borderline nominations — a subject passes or they do not. This one does, whether one deems him "important" or not. Carrite (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it is not a hard and fast rule, but a rule of thumb, and makes it clear that deviation from the rule of thumb is permitted in borderline cases. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, WP:NSPORT states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." As Sir Sputnik stated, these are rules of thumb which can be used to determine whether an individual is likely to meet WP:GNG. One appearance in a WP:FPL before returning to non-league play hardly meets GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the nomination notes, the article meets WP:FOOTY. Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. IJA (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFOOTY starts with "[a]ssociation football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following..." Per WP:PRESUMPTION the editors that want deletion have the burden to "prove the demonstrated presumption to be false." While I am 100% on board with an article being deleted even if it passes WP:NFOOTY or any other guideline, the burden is on the editors to show that the articles should be deleted. All that is being shown is how the article just passes WP:NFOOTY and that other articles that have been deleted. Note that while about a dozen or so deleted articles are shown I am sure at least an equal number of passing articles can be shown that just pass and are kept. I think just listing other articles and citing that the article just passes WP:NFOOTY falls well short of proving the demonstrated presumption to be false as required. RonSigPi (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPer RonSigPi and passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as per previous consensus at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 02:17, 5 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the second AfD I've come across recently for an article about a marginally notable person who has requested deletion, and the second time there's been a bunch of "keep per WP:NWHATEVER" comments. There's no reason to trap low-profile non-public figures in this kind of hidebound wikibureaucracy. Barely meeting an already low standard by a technicality is more or less WP:ONEEVENT in any case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the standard in the guideline is raised to say 10 games, then some editors will argue that those that play 10 games barely meet the standard and should have their articles deleted. It seems like in your opinion many of the WP:NSPORTS articles have too low of a standard. My suggestion would be to work to change the guidelines. If the community agrees with you, then the guideline can be changed and re-evaluation can occur. However, the community has set this standard and we have to go with it. This does not mean automatically keep, but it does mean presume notable unless shown otherwise. Just because you don't like the guideline/think the standard is too low does not mean we should undermine what the entire community has deemed appropriate for presuming notability. In short, work to change the guideline if you think it needs changed as opposed to trying to cause deletion of articles that meet the guideline and undermine the work of the whole community in creating that standard.RonSigPi (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. NFOOTY lets us down here because that guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson is likely to meet the general notability guideline, that it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Plainly, it is not the case that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the general notability guideline for a stand-alone article and it's not going to be the case. Since Mr Hadrava does not reach the level of our general notability guideline, he is a relatively unknown figure and we should accede to his request for deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you said boils down to nothing but opinion. And that opinion conflicts with the guideline. You say no sources exist, but provide no evidence that this is the case. You said the the guideline is to help evaluate, but more specifically it creates a presumption. Simply saying that sources don't exist does overcome the presumption that sources do exist. Have you gone to libraries in Colchester and Reading to go through the actual physical newspapers of that era to evaluate the sources? He played over 13 years ago and many potential sources from the Internet likely have been taken down. The whole point of the guideline is that sources such as these in the library do exist without forcing editors to hunt them down. If you want to overcome the presumption, then you can select to do so, but the burden is on you. Overcoming that presumption, especially when talking about a player that last played over a decade ago, requires more than a Google search.RonSigPi (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?!? This player played just over half an hour once in a WP:FPL. The remaining derivative of his career was in very low level leagues. He has asked for his page to be deleted and to be honest, any sources in the local libraries are going to be local by definition and would not satisfy GNG. Furthermore clear consensus has been shown above that players with similar careers are generally considered non notable. Finally what is the logic in presuming sources exist when none have been found? That makes no sense and if employed here could be employed in any argument where the suggestion was the player was not notable. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning keep. It looks like GNG could be met with some effort. This one is pretty in depth and took only a few seconds to find.[18]Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re read. Most of the article le is not even about the player in question. Secondly the element that is is just WP:ROUTINE reporting about his contract not being renewed. It is essentially composed of the normal empty "we wish him well" platitudes provided when anyone leaves a club. There is no depth to this whatsoever. At least half of this article is actually about Ruel Fox. Fenix down (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear that the article could ever satisfy the GNG and one single professional football appearance in an entire career just isn't enough to make this person notable. Jogurney (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in cases of borderline notability we head the wishes of the subject and delete the article when such deletions are requested.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and clean-up. Consensus herein is for article retention, but with the caveat of being copy edited and cleaned-up. As such, the {{Cleanup AfD}} template has been added atop the article. Further discussion regarding a potential merge, renaming, ways to restructure the article, etc. can continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Tudor pearl[edit]

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

A company called Symbolic & Chase, which is apparently the owner of this alleged pearl, created this article in 2013 for promoting it as an auction item. Look at original authorship and see numerous issues of notability, original research, writing style, citations. Note the laborious attempt to prove that this "pearl of Kuwait" was worn by an infamous English queen and is available to be viewed in London. The article attempts to prove the provenance of a pearl, without proper attestation to authorities and makes a travesty of Wikipedia by supporting this tenuous marketing theory. The very article title stands in contradiction to the name given, and also contradicts the La Peregrina pearl article. A PROD failed but has triggered no serious editing of the article to bring up to even stub-article standards. Article creator is blocked. More details on Talk page. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:47, 12 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 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Mary Tudor certainly had a big pearl - this is well documented. The issue is whether this was the pearl known as La Peregrina or this new rival claimant. The V&A exhibited the latter recently and this attracted some press coverage, e.g. The Economist, and so the matter is notable. Insofar as the issue is disputed or sources vary, we should not choose between them but should perhaps present what they say together. Andrew D. (talk) 13:38, 12 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) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but trim/rewrite the history section. This pearl is notable per multiple RS (e.g. [19] and [20]) but its provenance is not established. As The Economist puts it: "The pearl is said to have belonged to Mary Tudor (1496-1533). It looks exactly like one she is wearing in portraits, but there are long gaps in its provenance. Whatever its history, the pearl is a masterpiece." [21]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment - I am somewhat taken aback that none of the comments so far have covered the blatant commercialized language in the article, as written. As I tried to make abundantly clear, the entire article, except its title, is written to promote the pearl that recently toured London. (Sure there are news articles about it, but See WP:WHYN and WP:SPIP.) But the problem is that there are two separate pearls. Are we needing three articles? One for pearl of Kuwait, one for La Peregrina pearl, and one for Mary Tudor pearl? That would be "fair" by splitting off all of the claims and provenance stuff into the specific pearl articles, while the historical object gets its own page I guess? Modifying it is possible, but my opinion is severe curtailment until the sources roll in. The [[Mary Tudor pearl] article is full of speculation as it is... no independent news article says all of these things, just your beloved encyclopedia. If some think the new pearl needs some space here in an article on Wikipedia, fine, but it needs a new title, sources to back up its claims, and cross-references to the controversial subject. Right now the encyclopedia looks to be making all the guesses for the pearl, while the news articles report the lack of provenance. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:25, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite needed. WP:UGLY is not a reason to delete. I'm not denying that the article skates close to CSD G11, but I don't think a fundamental rewrite would be needed to get this to encyclopaedic standards. There has been no evidence presented that the pearl itself is not notable. De Guerre (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ugly. That has hardly been asserted. But what makes it notable? The article was created by the owner of the pearl and should have been deleted on sight without any major press coverage. The only press the pearl got was probably due to a £300 press release sent to London area news agencies. It appears to be not notable except in London. Did this get any international interest? I see it as a minor one-event wonder and the only real information on the web is literally the page that I think needs to be deleted. There is 10 times more alleged information in this article than any press report. Auction houses aren't encyclopedic sources but one is used prominently, in quotes, to describe the pearl for us and guess about its provenance.

I have asserted that there are poor and missing sources, creation by a person closely tied to the item, misleading conflation of provenance, promotional brochure, contradiction, no references to the counter-claims of a similar pearl, no wide notoriety or international notability, and most significantly... original research that includes wild speculation which culminates in this, the focal point of the article that demonstrates most of my assertions:

These portraits have been mis-catalogued in the past as depicting the famous La Peregrina pearl (which weighs 204 grains), which has been repeatedly mistaken for the pearl that Mary Tudor was given by Philip II as an engagement gift in 1554.

And you mentioned that it is WP:UGLY?? Ok. So a Wikipedia article takes sides on a $10 million dispute, and you say it is ugly? Ok.... I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(rename or merge) and major rewrite of material needed. As has been pointed out above, this article meets WP:GNG, so some of the material belongs here somewhere. It is close to WP:G11, but does not meet that deletion criteria. The article name and overall presentation are, to say the least, misleading regarding the (lack of) certainty of this pearl's history, so renaming or merging with La Peregrina pearl could be appropriate. Shanata (talk) 07:14, 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civitatis International[edit]

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

Despite a recent debacle of a recent article of the company charging for job references,WP:ONEEVENT WP:NOTNEWS. I cannot find any further independent published reliable sources for the company to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Grauniad and HuffPost have mentioned them, in relation to the intern issue. That issue, critical though the coverage is, should also be restored. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also they seem to be taken seriously by the UK government, in that they're invited to provide written submissions to select committees: [22] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability is established, no actions taken by this organization described, nothing at all to indicate its actual purpose. If this article were improved, then I might change my opinion. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the "article for deletion" tag has been deleted by a SPA who has already been busy deleting the article's only referenced content. The three-revert rule deters me from restoring it. Maproom (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD tags is an obvious vandalism, exempt under Wikipedia:3RRNO §4. They're also a fairly obvious sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have received sufficient lasting attention to pass the notability guideline. I searched for coverage and can find very little before the recent news story, which isn't enough for notability by itself. The earlier version of the article made stronger claims to notability[23] - it has apparently been associated with some notable people and organisations - but there remains a lack of reliable sources to back up anything in the article. Robofish (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the reason that Andy Dingly has stated above. Several news mentions and the UK government angle. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:28, 17 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 20:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on WordSeventeen view above. I agree if we can find a citation for the "government angle". But I have failed to find anything except in Civitatis's own material. Maproom (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The governmental angle is covered at this diff which was listed above. For your convenience: [24] WordSeventeen (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also more info re govt uk connection here: [25] WordSeventeen (talk) 23:36, 19 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) 04:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a tough call on this one, but I'm going to go with keep since it appears as though they have gained some notability through being used by the government. The recent mess over the internship also gives them some credence, so that's a plus as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Syrian Air Force An-26 crash[edit]

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

Military aircraft crashes are non-notable, being an operational hazard, unless there is another reason for notability, such as a notable passenger or civilians killed on the ground. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG etc.. Petebutt (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Easily meets GNG due to sheer amount of coverage. Crashes leading to large losses of life on Military Airplanes usually warrants coverage, despite there being an essay (WP:AIRCRASH) suggesting otherwise. From last year alone: 2014 Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown, 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash, 2014 Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force An-74 crash, Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down

It does not seem that the essay reflects the consensus on this matter. It does not seem that there is prolonged coverage of the issue, but it being the early days of the investigation, I would favor waiting to see if this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS or if the situation develops into something that can stand on its own.

Note: This position is reflected as part of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE section of WP:EVENTS "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Acebulf (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, rather than "keep, for now". We create articles for things that are notable. We don't create articles about news items and hope they will become notable in the future. At the moment, this is just a news event and so doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. If that changes in the future, editors shouldn't be prevented from re-creating this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait While it is true that the occasional crash of a military jet or helicopter killing a couple of crew members during routine operations or training is part of the normal risks of military life (like most automobile accidents or general aviation accidents are in civilian life) and therefore are not noteworthy and do not merit an article, any major military aircraft crash is not routine and is not a normal part of military life. In fact, it is a bit bizarre in my view to assert that any aircraft crash killing 30 or 35 people is somehow not significant regardless of who the plane belonged to. Wikipedia includes numerous articles on major military aircraft crashes worldwide over many years, as anyone can see by sampling the year-by-year aviation accident and incident templates, and with good reason. I note, however, that such crashes in industrialized countries seem to have greater acceptance as meriting Wikipedia articles than those in less developed countries like (in this case) Syria (although Wikipedia has accepted a number of Iranian military crashes that resulted in major loss of life), so it seems that an unspoken double standard may be in play when it comes to first-world and third-world crashes. If 30 to 35 deaths in a single military crash is not significant, how many people would have to die in a military crash to make it significant – 50, 75, 100, 200? It is not clear what criteria should be used for identifying a military crash as major enough to merit an article; while it seems that a jet or helicopter crashing and killing its pilot would be too insignificant to merit an article, it would also seem to be a no-brainer that a death toll of 30 to 35 (in this case) would be significant. I doubt very much that any true "consensus" exists among Wikipedia editors, let alone users, that such a military crash is not a significant event. Mdnavman (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

Delete for now. As tragic as the loss of 30 lives is, we aren't a newspaper, and there's no evidence of any significant coverage of this event after January 18th. If lasting coverage occurs, the article can be remade. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: worldwide news coverage. Still over 1000 hits on google news. Although WP is not a newspaper, it has articles about notable events. Consider how we handle AfDs, it's not based on editor sentiment as to whether it is significant enough, but rather on substantial RS coverage. It's the level of RS coverage that we look to not our personal views, or our personal guesses as to "why" it has attracted the coverage. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your personal view but it remains contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. "Why" is has received coverage is exactly what we are expected to judge. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is not true that Military aircraft crashes are non-notable. If they have worldwide news coverage they are notable. As mentioned above, there exist many articles about Military aircraft crashes. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "over 1000 hits" is rather misleading; I clicked the link Sander.v.Ginkel provided, and of the first 100 stories, not one was about the Syrian An-26. I did my own search, for "syrian air force antonov an-26", and got 43 hits, again none about this crash. A couple of news wire stories repeated all over the world with a bit of rewording is not the same as "substantial RS coverage" either. The BBC article used as a source in the article has a total of three sentences about the crash, so again not subtantial. There also exist on my Watchlist many redlinks for deleted articles about fatal military aircraft crashes, so the presence on WP of other articles concerning military aircraft crashes is of no relevance. YSSYguy (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not all naming the air force antonov an-26. See with an other search many articles about this crash here. And the BBC does have a complete article about the crash. see here Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 12:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of frequent casualties in the ongoing Syrian war, whose total death toll ranges between 127,450 and 286,455. Plus, the loss of a military aircraft in a war is more expectable than of a civilian one. This is unlike Armenian Mil Mi-24 shootdown mentioned above, which is rather outstanding incident in the current Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire violations, while the 2014 Algeria Lockheed C-130 Hercules crash and 2014 Lao People's Liberation Army Air Force An-74 crash occurred during peace time. This crash is already mentioned in 2015 in aviation anyway and could be added to the Casualties of the Syrian Civil War and Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (August 2014–present) as well. Brandmeister^talk 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable particularly in what is an operational flight, I cant see anything unusual in this one. MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' It's not true that military aircraft crashes are unnoticeable, but this article is poorly written and sourced, delete for now, and when "more detailed" information comes out, remake it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ueutyi (talk • contribs) 06:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written and sourced articles should be tagged and not deleted. MFriedman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Brandmeister. It also has not even made the world news outlets. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, for instance the BBC does have a article about the crash. see here MFriedman (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the logic that the article should be recreated later if more information surfaces. The information in this article is interesting, if not useful, and there are plenty of references to add more information if an editor with time comes upon this. Mamyles (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite what Libertarian12111971 stated above, this crash has made the world news outlets, and has been covered by reliable sources. One only needs to look at the references in the article to see that that is the case. Regardless, though it's not a policy the comparative lack of coverage of incidents that occur in non-western countries really shouldn't influence whether articles on such matters are kept (WP:Global perspective). Nevertheless, the article is well sourced to reliable news sources, and the question as to whether the aircraft was in fact shot down and the number killed in this incident makes it more notable than most incidents involving shootdowns of military aircrafts during conflicts, most of which have involved fighter jets and result in few casualties.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Involves death and is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.76.11 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is rough and needs work, but that can be fixed. The fact remains 37 souls deceased and an aircraft torn to pieces in a possible shoot down. Samf4u (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 20:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age just about any crash of any transport vehicle will generate media coverage. It isn't facts that decide notability, nor is it that people have died - death has never been a criterion for notability on Wikipedia - it is the amount of coverage of said facts. The recent ATR 72 crash is notable; there has been a lot of outside coverage and said coverage continues. This crash is not notable - there wasn't much coverage when it happened and such as there was only lasted a day or two. YSSYguy (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly facts help determine notability. The fact that this is a hull loss incident and may be a shoot down by enemy combatants increases its notability. Human fatalities as a criterion for notability is listed 4 times here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. This incident is covered by several independent and verifiable sources. It doesn't matter how long the coverage lasted: Notability is not temporary. Even if there were not "enough" coverage no can deny it happened. Samf4u (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing elements of that essay up. And it's an essay, not a policy, or even a guideline. It enjoys support among the members of that Wikiproject but it remain a personal essay for our purposes here. Even so, the essay suggests that "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable" and the "hull loss" provisions relate to civilian airliners. You're misreading WP:NOTTEMP too - this still fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT and so wasn't notable to begin with; whether notability is temporary or not is moot. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Crash has worldwide coverage, also important news sources like the BBC. And as Samf4u says: 37 souls deceased and an aircraft torn to pieces in a possible shoot down. MFriedman (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a speedy search I found many articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31... and there are more. Do we realy need more coverage? MFriedman (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As pointed out, the 000's of hits claim is misleading. We've established there is coverage; what we need to establish is whether that coverage verifies "enduring notability" rather than just short-term "this happened yesterday" stuff. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (WP:NOTNEWS). St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if you continue the sentence they name examples with things that are in the news every day like: routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. This crash is not something like this. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I opened ten of the 31 links above at random - six were the same Reuters story, one was Agence France Press and one AAP. Two were unattributed, but one looked the same as the Reuters story and the other looked the same as the AFP story. That is not in-depth discussion of the subject. YSSYguy (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think he didn't want to make the point that those articles have in-depth discussion, but that the topic has been reported by many, most of them reliable, news sources worldwide. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article exist in 5 other languages. Usually this isn't the case for unnotable events. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 10:31, 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 merge to List of Tugs characters. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Tugs characters[edit]

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

Unverified list of minor characters, which as such does not pass the GNG (nor do its constituents, of course). It is possible that some content can be merged into List of Tugs characters, though it's hard to tell given that that article also is woefully unverified--in other words, it's really impossible to tell what's minor and what's not. At any rate, this is not a viable topic. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Non-notable spin-off of a non-notable list. Wikipedia articles, lists included, should not resemble Tugs Wikia in any significant aspect. Should anyone want to save this fancruft, merging it into the bottom of List of Tugs characters would be sufficient, similar to List of minor characters in Dilbert. What's next, list of minor Tugs characters who appeared in six episodes? --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:16, 24 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 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as typical list covered by WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe--but note what happened with one of the examples in that section, List of minor characters in Dilbert: it got merged in a main article. Note also that it has ten entries, as opposed to ten million, in concise language. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Can be easily merged with List of Tugs characters. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:50, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:08, 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 merge to Trib Publications. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Star (Bessemer, Alabama)[edit]

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

No reliable sources indicating notability. Linked website has not been updated since 2009 and site does not appear to be for a print newspaper. The newspaper "The Western Star" is actually Canadian: http://www.thewesternstar.com/ Andrew³²⁷ 07:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are several newspapers in North America that go by that name; I know of one in southwest Ohio. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V as to its very existence (past or present) outside of a stale website. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:V rationale. Vrac (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Trib Publications, the publisher of this paper, owns 38 papers in 4 states (as of April 2014) and is potentially notable. See e.g. [26][27][28][29] [30][31][32]. I suggest merging and redirecting this article to a new one about the publisher. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weekly newspapers in the United States have generally been considered notable, especially if they have been around a while. I don't have a source for how old the Star is, but I remember seeing it sold in racks as far back as the late 1970s. It is a print newspaper published each Wednesday, but does not have a functioning website of its own — yeah, that's strange in this day and age, but that is at the direction of Trib's (elderly) owner, Bob Tribble. There is a Facebook page, though: [33] . Maybe I could go shoot a photo of a copy of the print edition. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references to reliable sources for notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:16, 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, SpinningSpark 11:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. APerson (talk!) 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many newspapers (dozens?) were/are named "The Western Star"; the article creator did the appropriate thing by parenthesizing locale in the title. Pax 03:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can envision a small town weekly paper abandoning a costly website in favor of increasingly popular free social media. Pax 03:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Newspaper previously named The Bessemer Advertizer, and has been around since 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs)

Actually, under various names, it goes back to 1887 if one clicks through the predecessor links. SpinningSpark 09:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Keep. (Though it does appear the thing is running-on-fumes at present, even a defunct paper can historically notable). Pax 08:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sympathetic to the nomination, but the existence of predecessor papers back to the late 19th century which could be included, as well as some evidence of notability I could find (I added two cites to article), suggest to me this is a better candidate for improvement instead of deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that information about the paper should be preserved, so how about redirecting to an article about parent company Trib Publications? I think there are enough sources to cover the parent company, just not all of its publications. Andrew³²⁷ 11:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that merging this to Trib Publications would be a good idea, but that article does not yet exist and in the meantime the information should be kept per WP:PRESERVE. SpinningSpark 03:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, since Trib Publications has been created, do you think the article can be deleted now? APerson (talk!) 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are re-using content from this article at Trib Publications, merge/redirect, not deletion, would be the indicated result.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge, the existence of a parent article is not, by itself, justification for deletion. SpinningSpark 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Trip Publications to preserve all useful information from the article in question. Andrew³²⁷ 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewman327, you mean Trib Publications? APerson (talk!) 19:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is correct, good catch. Andrew³²⁷ 20:31, 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 delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narinderpal Singh Hundal[edit]

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

non notable WP:NPOL Deunanknute (talk) 06:06, 22 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 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:54, 22 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 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -A politician needs not to be an elected candidate to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. They may be notable for having "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources" -per WP:NPOL #3 and WP:GNG. Here is the coverage I am able to find of them, -[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. However, almost all sources are related or centric to their role as a candidate for Mayor election, -making the case WP:BLP1E. If that's so, they are not eligible for inclusion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I thought WP:POL was a little unclear on what type, or amount of, coverage counts as notability. Anyone running for a town of a few hundred in the rural US is bound to get "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources". It's routine coverage, a lot like a couple of paragraphs about the local kids baseball team. They don't get an article. If this candidate gets an abnormally large amount of coverage, then, yes, he should have an article. Here is an essay I found that explains how I came to this conclusion. Please note: as far as I know this essay is not an "Official" Wikipedia guideline. Deunanknute (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 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 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is purely a campaign document for a failed candidate for local office. I have updated the article slightly, to reflect the fact that the election (November 2014) is over and that he drew only 16%. I didn't bother to remove all the puffery and promotion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Subject fails WP:NPOL not being an elected candidate. Whatever sources are out there are not having substantial coverage, -even if some person claims them to meet WP:BASIC standard, -it appears to be falling under WP:BLP1E criteria. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Love (story)[edit]

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

I do not see any credible assertion of notability for this short story. Initially I simply changed this article to a redirect to the article on the collection in which it appears (which actually seems the best outcome to me), but the edit was reverted by the page author & I thought that I would take it to AfD as a courtesy TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I am not sure how can I add more reliable cites than a newspaper and the site of the author himself. All the four cites are indeed notable and the article deserves to be kept. May be the plot is too big for such an article which could be trimmed down. - The Herald (here I am) 16:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone and Margin1522: I have made some changes which now very clearly illustrate the notability on the story. Thus my vote changes to Speedy Keep.. - The Herald (here I am) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That's better. Sorry I haven't got time right now but I'll read the new sources later. Hopefully we can get some more opinions here. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:41, 31 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources. Redirect – to A Quiver Full of Arrows. The only in-depth discussion of this story that I could find was to an ezinearticles.com page, which should have been cited because parts of the article seem to be a close paraphrase. Unfortunately it's a self-publishing site and blacklisted, so it doesn't count as an RS. The other cites were just brief mentions. Sorry, but there's not enough material for a separate article. The destination article doesn't have a plot summary for this story, so that could be done, briefly, like the other stories. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually possible to discuss anything by Jeffrey Archer in depth?TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story is the subject of post-graduate programs in India and is being used for education purposes in Indian High schools hence passes #5 of the notability threshold. I'll ping Margin1522 to reconsider. Jim Carter 07:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – @Jim Carter: OK, changing my !vote to keep. There is this, and the sources found by The Herald, which show that it was not only a play but also a Masterpiece Theater production on TV. I guess that's notable. I still think it ought to be mentioned in A Quiver Full of Arrows. (@The Herald: Could you take care of that?) – Margin1522 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the above about this bit of typing being used in post grad courses is true, God help the Indian education system. But I guess I withdraw my nomination.TheLongTone (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margin1522, I'll take it. TheLongTone, its a story which I have studied in ISC. So I think its notable and hence created it. Thanks all. - The Herald (here I am) 15:15, 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. Missvain (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen State[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No reliable sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there is some coverage in independent reliable sources, e.g. [41] and [42], it does not appear to be sufficient to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 02:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Everymorning: does not currently to meet WP:BAND. Shanata (talk) 06:51, 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) 08:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Hislop[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candiates at an election are not notable and no other claims are made for her. Grahame (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Textbook unsuccessful candidate. Frickeg (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As given above. Geogene (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frickeg. –Davey2010^Talk 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 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.