Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 February	8 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes (Tiga song)[edit]

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

Does not meet most of WP:NMG. Has not been certified gold anywhere, could not find any chartings, and has not been nominated for a major award. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 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) 23:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only a very little bit of context is in this article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowager (talk • contribs)
I've heard this song many times on the radio, for what it's worth — but indeed, nothing in this article as written demonstrates that it needs a separate article, and the song has no credible claim to passing WP:NSONGS (which does not confer an automatic notability freebie on all songs that exist) that I'm aware of. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 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) 07:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umut Oğuz[edit]

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

Another unotable actor by the same user. Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eser Yenenler[edit]

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

Yet ANOTHER unotable actor with just a few roles. Wgolf (talk) 22:38, 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uğur Öztürk[edit]

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

Another unotable Turkish person by the same editor. Wgolf (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 15:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:ATHLETE. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarp Levendoğlu[edit]

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

Another unotable actor here Wgolf (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:36, 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) 07:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Magnets (Japan)[edit]

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

Not finding anything to meet WP:BAND The record label they released under fails criteria #2 and their most successful single Try My Limit fails criteria #5. Everything else in the article doesn't seem to reach a criteria. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. (Criterion A7) The article does not indicate in any way why this band might have been vaguely notable. --DAJF (talk) 14:24, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn: Filed at RfD instead. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parexocoetus brachypterus[edit]

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

Unhelpful redirect, the species article is only linked to by the genus article, but the species article links back upwards to the family article. Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and keep: this is about a redirect and should be brought up at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. -- Sam ^Sing! 22:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: Filed at RfD instead. Astrofreak92 (talk) 21:48, 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. WP:CSD#A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Büyükak[edit]

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

Looks like another unotable actor here with just a few roles that are unotable. Wgolf (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a whole rash of these uploaded by the same editor in a short space of time. No evidence of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-yeah as you can tell I put up a bunch of afds up for them also-the guy did get several warnings a few months ago about posting unsourced BLP's and looks like they are doing it again. Wgolf (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oğuzhan Koç[edit]

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

Actor with only a few roles, nothing significant either. Wgolf (talk) 22:21, 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) 07:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Mehoob Ali[edit]

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

Contested, with no reason given, prod. Unable to find references and none given. Postcard Cathy (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP that fails Wikipedia:Notability and has a grand total of zero references. Snowager (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have thousands of imams for thousands of villages; there is no reason to assume he is specially notable. A Google search doesn't give anything credible, so fails GNG guideline. Ethically^Yours! 15:54, 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 My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Equestria_Girls_film_series. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls – Friendship Games[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The rationale I gave when PRODding it still stands, which was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF as there is no evidence this film has entered principal photography and there is very little coverage of it in reliable sources." The vast majority of coverage of this still-unreleased film comes from fan sites and other unreliable sources, which indicates that it does not meet WP:GNG. It's WP:TOOSOON for this to have its own article. Everymorning talk 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete - Too soon for an article. Sources are poorly-written blogs with no clear editorial standards, cryptic Tweets, and a Facebook post that says that a company has the rights to #3, but that doesn't announce a third film is actually in the works. What is also troubling is that the contributor has fleshed out the infobox and other areas based entirely on assumptions. What little content that can be salvaged might be moved to a more suitable MLP article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with possible future re-creation. I originally thought about redirecting/merging to My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, but there doesn't seem to be anything verifiable here. (The only thing from a reliable source is the Facebook post [per WP:ABOUTSELF], but all that says is that there is a third film, without a name. That could merit a mention in My Little Pony: Equestria Girls, but I think a redirect would be rather WP:CRYSTALLine.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete and Redirect. Expand and merge at target if and when proper sources offer verifiability. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when WP:NFF (paragraph) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. It can be put in the Equestria Girls article, but I don't think right now because there's no reliable source. Dcbanners (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic#Equestria_Girls_film_series. This doesn't have enough coverage to merit an article at this point in time but I do think that this merits a redirect. The reason for this is that the prospective film is discussed at Equestria Daily and other sources, so this will be a reasonable search topic. Granted all we have now is rumor and speculation, but a redirect to the main section for the EG film series would likely discourage someone re-creating the article later on down the line. In other words, if they type it in and see nothing then they'll think that it just hasn't been written about yet and then try to create the article to fill the gap. If they type it in and see that it redirects to a section that reports that the film hasn't started and is little more than rumors at this point in time, they'll be less likely to want to create an article. Now as far as this article goes, it could probably be userfied if anyone wants to incubate it until there's confirmation that this will happen. I know that there is merchandise out there, but so far there's nothing out there that really shows notability. (I can't remember what the name of the doll was, but I remember Hasbro releasing a baby alicorn princess doll that ended up never becoming part of the show, so merch isn't a guarantee that something will happen.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kids World (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM pretty readily, not much coverage beyond a review in Variety and that's the only RS I found regarding it. tutterMouse (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep It's a Christopher Lloyd film after all and New Zealand project too. Beyond Variety (impressive that they took notice), I found another at Urban Cinefile, and the thing brought award attention to its stars. Yes, it definitely needs use of sources, but it's just notable enough to allow a keep and improve over time and through diligent efforts. No need to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Keep. A Variety review, even a flawed one, is almost always a demonstration of notability for a film. Other sources listed above by M.Q. Schmidt are fine as well. Cavarrone 07:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American professional sports teams by type of name[edit]

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

This page seems rather ridiculous to me, and I have spent a lot of time on it. Where does it end, should the Canadian Football League be included in it, why not minor league sports, or university? It is entirely original research (understanding that most of it is entirely self evident), however I don't think that a page listing all pro sports teams by arbitrary grouping of team name is really necessary. I also don't believe that the grouping of team names is a particularly notable topic in its own right either. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Somebody with way too much time on their hands came up with their own classifications (livestock?). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Clarityfiend. No Matter How Dark (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is too hilarious to be serious. It's entirely unencyclopaedic wp:listcruft. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 01:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, it's listcruft. It has a useful place in the world, but that place is a sports fansite and not Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 06:59, 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 03:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession[edit]

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

Book fails WP:BKCRIT. Dewritech (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently notable so redirect to the author. Pichpich (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found what seem to be enough sources to meet WP:BKCRIT: [1] [2] [3] [4] Everymorning talk 21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Everymorning. It is possible to find more reviews of the book at JSTOR, see [5] (The Antioch Review) or [6] (Journal of Thought). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BKCRIT per the various sources provided. The article needs improvement and not deletion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:36, 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 03:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion in Milonice[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. Dewritech (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could hardly verify the existence of this mansion, otherwise an 18th ceuntry architecture will be considered unquestionablely notable.--Antigng (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a listed historic building (you'll need to search for Miłonice) and as an 18C wooden mansion I think it probably passes the notability bar. Here's a photo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it meets WP:GEOFEAT C1.--Antigng (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical buildings and landmarks in Portland, Oregon[edit]

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

Contested prod (no reason given). Article was created through AfC as "Portland Historical Buildings and Landmarks" and probably shouldn't have passed. Delete per: WP:NOTGUIDE--this is a subjective collection of the highlights of some things in Portland that is more suited to a tourism guide than to an encyclopedia. We already have several lists of NRHP buildings, such as National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, see An Architectural Guidebook to Portland; Best of Oregon and Washington's Mansions, Museums and More; Wicked Portland: The Wild and Lusty Underworld of a Frontier Seaport Town; Only in Oregon: Natural and Manmade Landmarks and Oddities; Portland's Lost Waterfront; &c. The suggested alternative of National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon is a ludicrous title and, if it covers the same ground, should be merged into this one. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by the comment that National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon is "ludicrous" as it is part of a long-standing NRHP listing scheme that has been carefully maintained for at least ten years. It seems odd to suggest the info from the long-standing article be merged into this new one. Note also that I did not suggest it as an alternative title, it was just one example of one page where the info in the article being discussed here already existed. Valfontis (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the point in calling the title ludicrous is that many people might not know what county Portland is in, or might be looking for NRHP sites by city. This article might still be suitable for deletion, but there might be value in an objective list of NRHP sites within the Portland city limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrofreak92 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are five such lists: North • Northeast • Northwest • Southeast • Southwest. It's true the article titles don't give global context, and it's really great to think about our potential readers, but a quick search* using a browser that allows global English searches shows that the Portland NRHP lists come up as the top 2 or 3 hits.** Valfontis (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC) *for historic buildings in Portland Oregon. **So if the issue is reader searching and navigation, I think we have that covered. Valfontis (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the discussion re: naming the NRHP lists is here. Valfontis (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested title isn't "ludicrous', it follows standard naming conventions. p b p 05:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rival list doesn't follow our standard naming conventions which are WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LISTN. It's almost useless because it does not have sensible keywords in its title. If you Google on obvious keywords like Portland and landmark, you get the list which the nominator is now trying to delete, not his rival preference. The real problem with the newcomer is obviously that it's not invented here. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that problem can be solved by redirecting. p b p 14:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What alternate title would you propose for a list of National Register of Historic Places-listed items in the county? Note that it's not attempting to be a city list; it's all of the sites in the county, regardless of whether they're in the city or not. Whatever title we pick must be able to include all National Register-listed locations while excluding all types of historic sites that aren't on the National Register. Believe me, if you can come up with a better title, WP:NRHP would like to hear of it. In the mean time, you should note that National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Oregon is a redirect to the section that discusses Portland's sites. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) This list has no criteria for inclusion, 2) In theme, it's a duplication of the superior NRHP in M County article linked above, and maintaining both is a waste of project volunteer time. Townlake (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List has no criteria for inclusion; they have been chosen subjectively and the title is misleading (there is no way to list all notable buildings in Portland). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously possible to make such lists because we have plenty of them for other cities such as list of Chicago Landmarks. In particular, we have the list of buildings in Seattle — a very similar city to Portland — and that page has existed for over seven years. There doesn't seem to be much difficulty finding sources, as demonstrated above, and there are organisations with a special interest and resources for the topic — see Individual Historic Resources and Landmarks and Portland History & Preservation. Andrew D. (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just some context. It's possible this is an "other stuff" argument. I note that pretty much the only active member of WikiProject Washington (someone who has taken hundreds of photos of historic buildings and carefully maintained the Washington NRHP lists) questioned the inclusion criteria for the Seattle list back in 2007. And the Chicago list has inclusion criteria in a hatnote right at the top: "Chicago Landmarks designated by the city government". Valfontis (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , it is indeed an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, just like the nomination, which also points to other stuff. The point is that we have lots of lists of major buildings and landmarks in major cities. We have so many of these lists that we have categories to organise them such as Lists of buildings and structures in London. These lists are so numerous that they demonstrate that it is our general policy to have and maintain them. This is therefore a valid argument per WP:OSE, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated the Seattle list for deletion, as the criteria for inclusion appears to be "buildings we think are notable that nobody else does". :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either National Register of Historic Places listings in Multnomah County, Oregon or National Register of Historic Places listings in Portland, Oregon. Those things have criteria for inclusion; this list at present does not. p b p 05:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a needless fork, in addition to the NRHP in Multnomah County article cited above, each of these landmarks seems to have its own WP page — including the Burnside Bridge, which I was a bit concerned about. The NOTGUIDEBOOK proscription would seem to apply. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's so illogical that it seems necessary to go into detail. The page is a list and so the existence of separate pages for the entries is expected per WP:LISTPURP. We'd have to delete most of our lists, including the NRHP ones, if that nonsense were ever accepted but, per WP:NOTDUP, that's not our policy. The existence of the NRHP county list does not make this a fork because the scope of the lists is different. This one focuses upon the features of the city, rather than the county, and this is more sensible per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LISTN. Note that the NRHP is not sufficiently comprehensive for this purpose as there are entries such as the notable Skidmore Fountain, which are not included in that but which are officially recorded as a "Portland Historic Landmark". Finally the the guidebook argument won't wash either because we'd have to delete all these lists and remove all the pages about the entries if we wanted to make Wikipedia useless to people visiting the city and we're obviously not going to do that. Trying to claim simultaneously that the page is both invalid content and a fork of valid content is self-contradictory and so absurd. And even if it were a fork, that would not be an argument to delete because WP:REDUNDANTFORK states, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lack of objective inclusion criteria is a problem that could be solved if a list that was to be in addition to the existing NHRP list were to be restricted to official historic landmarks designated by the City of Portland. See Individual Historic Resources and Landmarks for more detail. List of Chicago Landmarks is an example of such a list restricted to city designated entries. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is easy to fix; the question is whether it's worthwhile to fix it when a perfectly good parallel article already exists. Having two lists of Portland historic sites strikes me as a waste of time; 90% of the M County historical sites are in Portland. Townlake (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Andrew's really excellent suggestion above, I've made it clear in its article that Skidmore Fountain is in fact listed on the NRHP. Here is the Portland Landmarks list. There are 703 listings, 473 of which are also NRHP, 112 are NRHP without being PDX, and 118 are PDX without being NRHP. Quite a few of the non-NRHP ones have articles here, such as White Stag sign, and a quick glance shows that many of the rest are NRHP contributing. Although it would be possible to make an "official" List of Portland Historic Landmarks (leaving out the "Witches Mansion" as that is actually a derelict restroom), like Townlake argues, it's probably a waste of our time to try to maintain another separate list with 703 entries. Valfontis (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skidmore Fountain is a good example because it appears in the list in question and seems to be quite a notable landmark in Portland. Getting the facts straight about it may therefore be helpful in understanding the more general issue. The table of historic landmarks maintained by Portland's Historic Landmarks Commission indicates that it has not been listed in the national register. The NRHP source which Valfontis recently added to the Skidmore fountain article is a nomination which does not seem to have been accepted and that nomination is for the "Skidmore/Old Town Historic District" which is a more general area of some 57 properties. The description in the NRHP nomination only mentions the fountain briefly and so I'm not sure that this would count as an entry, if it had been accepted. I am therefore not convinced that the NRHP is a sufficient source or basis for coverage of the topic. Note that the fountain doesn't seem to appear in the corresponding NRHP list in Wikipedia. The closest entry seems to be number 94 in the National Register of Historic Places listings in Northwest Portland, Oregon. That took some digging to find because it's buried deeply under the county list and doesn't mention the fountain or link to it.Andrew D. (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/75001597_text, a revised version of the Skidmore/Old Town HD's National Historic Landmark status:

Pages 24-25 show that it's a contributing property and comment about its local designation
Pages 63-64 provide extensive documentation of it
Page 78 notes that it was the namesake for the district

So yes, it's definitely included on the Register, although not individually listed. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because as is noted above, what makes something historic enough for this page? If it's official local designation, the comparison with Chicago Landmarks is reasonable, and the article will need to be reworked extensively, because it doesn't give any indication of that. If there's no specific criterion, this is too vague to retain. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what would stop us from doing this extensive reworking? Deletion would stop us — that's what. Hasty deletion of an article that has only just emerged from Articles For Creation would obviously be quite disruptive. Our editing policy is to preserve content: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything would need to be redone. When we've got 700 entries, descriptions this size cannot be retained: can you imagine a page 78 times this length? The only possible way to present the local designations is to give just a list. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: What is stopping us from extensive reworking is the fact that another page on this article topic already exists. An article being migrated from AFC is just as subject to deletion as a non-AFC-created article. p b p 14:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this emerged from AfC in June. Valfontis (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, other pages cover the topic with clearer criteria for inclusion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is being lost in the above discussion that 1) the NHRP tables do have a "description" section, 2) many/most of those descriptions are blank, and 3) this article offers such descriptions. There is no need for two articles on the same subject, of course, but there is also no need to throw away perfect good descriptions due to this. The one source->multiple targets situation creates a complicated merge situation, but one worth doing. (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for instructions.) Pinging @SFK2: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had already notified SFK2 of this AfD on their talk page; they haven't edited since July. Valfontis (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Valfontis. Neutrality^talk 06:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Edwards (musician)[edit]

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

I don't see anything that suggests notability outside a couple of passing mentions in articles about a couple of bands, but nothing about the musician himself. I don't see anything that satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. (Please note I've removed a number of statements unsourced or tagged as unsourced, some since since 2010). Squinge (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 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) 07:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Gold Hits: Volume 4[edit]

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

Non notable albums. Fail WP:NALBUM. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagikCow (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. All clearly fail GNG, as do all other similar albums created by the same user. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 16:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Non notable albums released only to make money Gbawden (talk) 10:20, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polisakart' language[edit]

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

Couldn't find any evidence of the existence of this language. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No need for AfD --BiH (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources. Personally I don't think it is blatant enough for WP:G3 (almost there), but I don't object listing it that. Fun fact: m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Polisakart' is a thing. Its listing at incubator:Incubator:Wikis uses a ISO code that matches to Northern Popoloca language by the ISO 639-1 finder thing. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero reliable sources; Polish-language message board posts suggest it's some sort of Georgian/Polish patois, but since all such mentions seem to originate with the same poster, I suspect the claims of 900 speakers are inflated ... by about 899 or so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, deleted from pl wikipedia, pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2014:12:28:Polisakart', where the supporters couldn't muster better arguments that "it doesn't harm anyone". There are a few unreliale sources (blogs, forum posts, etc.); the best I can say is that someone created a nee language and got a blog out. Note: meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Polisakart', commons:File:Dokument zapisany Polisakart'em.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever else this is, it certainly isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Apparently a hoax, unless you believe that two villages in Poland have residents who have taken up speaking a new language making use of the Georgian alphabet, which has zero in common with either the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 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 speedy delete - blanked by author. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Bland[edit]

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

non-notable blp, no independent references found Deunanknute (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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) 07:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data Protecto[edit]

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

Spammy article about a software product. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any significant independent sources, just primary sources (own site, press release), wiki-style sites (wikihow) and just blogs and forums, which just don't establish notability. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, written like an advert. I'm not sure whether this qualifies as a speedy delete per CSD G11 but it might qualify because of the nature of the article. Hx7 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Rediscovered[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator No sources, cannot find anything online in English that suggests this was a best seller, found a page on google from the novel which talks about the publisher of the book winning awards. Quite a few sites has it as very few reads/reviews...Can anyone find anything that might justify notability under WP:NOTE for books besides what seems like advertisement claims? Edit: Nomination Withdrawnηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Subject meets BKCRIT#1 and GNG criteria. Sources, -Indian Express, The Hindu, The Hindu-2, The Hindu-3, Frontline, Outlook Traveller, Telegraph India, Corporate Communications: A 21st Century Primer (book), MORE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I couldn't find any sources while looking it up (maybe I was using wrong search phrases, or google was giving me weird tailored results, what terms did you use? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Madras Rediscovered" on WP:INDAFD search engines (Google doesn't index the Indian newspapers, magazines, sources properly). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jubilee Shield[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, non-notable amateur competition JMHamo (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the absence of a professional league, this competition (while for amateur teams) is the national club championship for women's soccer in Canada, which is hosting the FIFA Women's World Cup this year. It is "one of the largest national championships for women’s club football in the world"^[1], its teams have been featured in provincial media^[2], its players have played in the FIFA Women's World Cup^[3], and is considered important enough to be livestreamed on Canadian online sports broadcasters^[4]. If part of the goal of WikiProject Football is to write articles on all notable football competitions in every country, I feel like this applies. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but if there's a different standard for noteworthiness that's being used, can I get your help in understanding it, because I don't know what it is. n.b. Both articles should properly be titled as "Jubilee Trophy" - Jubilee Shield appears to be an antiquated term. Gopherbashi (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "10 teams confirmed for 2013 Jubilee Trophy women's championship". insoccer.ca. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
^ "Kirby cruises to another Jubilee Trophy title". thetelegram.com. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
^ "Donnelly: Matriarch for club and country". fifa.com. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
^ "Canada Soccer Senior Women's Jubilee Trophy Final". sportscanada.tv. Retrieved 7 February 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for "jubilee trophy" there are a number of news stories in addition to those cited by Gopherbashi. This meets WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 20:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need more than routine news coverage to prove notibility. JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The Jubilee Trophy is one of the oldest national women's competitions in the world"[7] and searching does yeild coverage that is more than routine. Perfect example of an article that could be expanded instead of deleted.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can the national cup of number 9 FIFA ranked nation not be notable? Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment National Cup?? It's an amature competition... JMHamo (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So? That doesn't make it not a national competition, and the top-level competition of the sport. How is this any different than the The Challenge Trophy? Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - top competition for women's football in Canada and therefore inherently notable. Needs improving with the references cited above but fail to see how any articles on Canadian women's football could be more notable than this bar the national team article. Fenix down (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. Top National Competition for Women in Canada.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average (sports)[edit]

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

Not a notable topic Bhny (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Nobody is talking about a general concept of average in sports different from Average in its common meaning. There are specific averages in sports Batting average, etc. but these are not the same as what this article is claiming. Borock (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Borock. A vague OR definition without sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge While it could use some references and expansion, it is a relevant topic. Perhaps a section within Average is due, and there is no need to keep it as a separate article sort of along the same lines as Borock suggested.—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept seems so vague as to be dictionary definition of averageness in all walks of life. I cannot think of a way that averageness, as described in this stub, can be the basis of an article about sport. In my view, Average (sports) should be a disambiguation page with links to Batting average (cricket), Batting average (baseball), Goals against average, and so on. Aspirex (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is essentially a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2013[edit]

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

This reads completely like an Advert for this business. Most contributors are banned socks of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive Legacypac (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment - I note that the main article Miss Earth appears fully referenced and demonstrably notable, and there are articles for all the other individual pageants by year. Despite the severe Mrdhimas-itis, there ARE articles for all the individual Miss Earth pageants so there is precedent, and deleting just one seems illogical. Hence a reluctant keep, although the current article should probably be deleted and recreated as a basic stub so that Mrdhimas's promotional antics are not validated in any way whatsoever.Mabalu (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Per Mabalu. The pageant is mere notable than other major pageants like Miss Universe and Miss World.ApprenticeFan ^work 08:40, 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 snow keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Club[edit]

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

DELETE does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.138.7 (talk)
Speedy Keep - over 1000 hits in reliable sources for professional wrestling. Has been the top stable in the second largest professional wrestling organization in the world, NJPW. It's members have held virtually every title NJPW has to offer, including the Heavyweight Championship. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep and close theAfD. buller club is the top stable in NJPW. Its notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top stable in NJPW.--Sismarinho (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obvious troll nomination (probably in response to the Brass Ring Club AfD), Bullet Club is a major faction in New Japan Pro Wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination. GNG clearly met. Let's wrap this up so that it can get on with its Good Article review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominent wrestling stable that has most of New Japan Pro Wrestling's championships in it's possession, and has some of it's members also competing in U.S. national promotion Ring of Honor. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This faction has held championships in two major promotions (New Japan Pro Wrestling and CMLL) in addition to a semi-major promotion which broadcasts on the Sinclair Broadcast Groups's networks in America (Ring of Honor). It wouldn't be unreasonable to amend the title to read Bullet Club (professional wrestling), but the article is worthwhile. Mike (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmichaellarue: - no need to disambiguate when no other article is called Bullet Club. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Absolutely meets GNG with respect to wrestling, for reasons that other responders have already stated. — Dale Arnett (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is above and beyond the notability guidelines, The stable holds a majority of the championships in the second largest Wrestling company in the world, Whoever nominated this needs to be blocked for trolling. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 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, non-notable musician. No need to go through a full AfD here. Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kushal gautam[edit]

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

fails WP:Music and is non notable, no info on internet at all besides social networking, autobiography Kges1901 (talk) 08:51, 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) 07:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROF. Y.S. (YAHYA SHAIKH) TAHIR ALI[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete highly promotional unsourced hagiography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced and unverifiable using the google. This person may indeed be notable but impossible to tell without actual references. Did a fair bit of searching on the works listed in article, and variants of the subjects name, but didn't find anything. Could be a transliteraiton problem but in this case I think the onus would be on the page's creator to help us out in that area if the page were submitted again in the future. —Noah 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Even if they meet GNG or NACADEMIC, TNT it for now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything said above. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

একে-৪৭[edit]

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

Delete: Article seem to be on AK-47 in Bengali language. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD:A2, because the article exists on the Bengali wikipedia.Kges1901 (talk) 08:59, 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) 07:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2014[edit]

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

Relies on company sources, plus a blogspot site. Future event=TOOSOON. Created by a sockfarm. Also the title 2014 does not match the event to be held in August 2015 and according to this http://www.thepageantaficionado.com/calendar/ the 2014 version was cancelled. Legacypac (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 14:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 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! 08:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how relisting this will help. The event never happened. The creator was blocked indef for socking. The 2015 version of the article was just deleted. Just delete it already. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of substantial coverage by reliable sources. The supplied references are primary or sites like Missosology. Searches for RS coverage yield little. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-event and no significant media coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Andersen (archer)[edit]

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

Promotional, dubiously sourced, may not all be true, see talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see any reason to keep this. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an archery speed world record holder, he is notable enough. I have added more reliable sources to the article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems sourced suffciently now Flukas (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 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) 07:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wenceslao Garcia[edit]

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

This article was already deleted once after an AFD. It was then recreated just a month later. Since it was almost a year ago, I don't want to use G4, but I propose an AFD discussion on the topic. The concern is the same: the notability of the subject. The article does not cite reliable independent sources with significant coverage.Sited sources are either written by the subject, or just mention him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 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, Michig (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD decision to delete in February 2014 is close to the commencement of this article in March 2014. It could be worthwhile if someone can check for similarity, in which case CSD G4 would be suitable? AllyD (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nominator says, the sources are poor - a couple of passing name checks in sources that themselves are weak anyway. Of the awards claimed, only the unreferenced "Exhibit at National museum in 1930s." could be possible evidence of notability, but the nature of the exhibition would need to be clarified and substantiated (for example one piece in a group show would fall far short). A search on Highbeam, which has coverage of Philippines media, turns up nothing. As it stands, this fails WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple reliable sources, however none can be considered as meeting WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV, therefore the subject clearly is not notable as considered by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:ARTIST. Therefore, at this time, I support deletion of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:10, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of current ARM cores[edit]

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

It's a subset of Comparison of ARMv7-A cores, thus no reason to exist. --Sbmeirow (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - There is ARM11 in the table, which is not ARMv7-A. Perhaps the better way out would be to reorganize the article into a Comparison of classic ARM cores instead. --4th-otaku (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - ARM11 is only one column out of the table, so it's not a big loss. People should be expanding the ORIGINAL article List of ARM cores instead of creating new ones. I rarely see anyone touch it. I think it could even be argued to merge all of these back into it. I vote to kill this article, then worry about expanding legacy stuff at some point when someone wants to spend a bunch of time to add new columns or sections to List of ARM cores. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Vote to DELETE the article. No change of opinion. "Comparison of current ARM cores" is same as "Comparison of ARMv7-A cores" except for ARM11 info, also ARM11 isn't considered current. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - As an industrial user of ARM products, I find this article extremely useful and view it as an asset unique from List of ARM cores. In making future product architecture decisions, having ongoing access to this article is valuable to me. I would vote NOT to delete this article. Tlofthouse (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless User:Sbmeirow missed something, the only differences between Comparison of current ARM cores and Comparison of ARMv7-A cores are 1) the first of those articles includes ARM11 and 2) Comparison of current ARM cores has the cores as columns and the characteristics as rows while Comparison of ARMv7-A cores has the cores as rows and the characteristics as columns. Given that, is Comparison of current ARM cores any more useful than Comparison of ARMv7-A cores and, if so, why? Guy Harris (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlofthouse: seems to be the only one against. I wander if people are not up-to-date on ARM11/ARMv6 maybe getting hard too find soon, with the ARMv7 Raspberry Pi 2 out, and like to change their mind. An article for ARMv8 is clear cut, and an article on ARMv7 but "Current" is a moving target.. with ARMv6 probably on the way out. Raspberry Pi is I think the last holdout. ARMv6 is in my old smartphone.. but do they make them anymore? [Or even feature phones with?] What about microcontrollers that are not ARMv7? Firefox (OS) added and then dropped ARMv6 support.. Pre-ARMv6 (or ARMv6 that is still compatible, but not ARMv7) RISC OS have a little problem.. [I'm not too familiar with the ARMv6 microcontroller situation.] comp.arch (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's always Comparison of ARM cores, which has ARM11 for those who need it. Unless somebody comes up with a compelling reason why Comparison of current ARM cores is "an asset unique from", for example, Comparison of ARM cores and/or Comparison of ARMv7-A cores+Comparison of ARMv8-A cores, I'd say "nuke it". Guy Harris (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - some points:

I think tables with characteristics as columns and items being compared as rows, like Comparison of ARMv7-A cores and Comparison of ARMv8-A cores, are better than tables with characteristics as rows and items being compared as columns, such as Comparison of current ARM cores. The former is the style used by most of the tables I've seen, and scales better as more items are added (which, in general, happens more often than characteristics being added). So, if Comparison of current ARM cores is to be kept, it should be transposed.
If Comparison of current ARM cores is to be kept, and if nobody's still fabricating ARM11 cores and ARM isn't still licensing them, either ARM11 should be removed, in which case the table would presumably now be 100% redundant with Comparison of ARMv7-A cores and it would not be any more useful than that article, so the article should just be deleted, or it should be renamed to "Comparison of ARM cores". Guy Harris (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - and to add some more fun to the discussion, there's also a Comparison of ARM cores page! This sounds like a product of the Department of Redundancy Department; what core comparison pages are actually useful here? Is "current" vs. "historic" sufficiently useful that there needs to be a page solely for current cores, and, if so, should there be a page solely for historical cores and no page for both, or should there be (at least) two pages with duplicate information on current cores? Are the differences between different flavors of the architecture sufficiently useful that there should be pages comparing cores for particular architectures? If so, then does there need to be a page including cores for all architectures? Guy Harris (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep, too darn many ARM list articles, thus is why we need to kill this article and discuss elsewhere what to do with this big mess! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I'd rather kill this article, then START a new effort to determine a future direction in another talk section (NOT HERE). Subjects that need to be discussed: How do we want to handle 32-bit vs 64-bit cores, should we merge everything? Should we create another article that compares just the legacy 32-bit cores? Should we rename the ARMv7-A and ARMv8A to (32-bit ARM) and (64-bit ARM), then put all the legacy and current cores in the 32-bit article? We need to get more people involved in that discusion! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As pointed out above, there are already too many list-style articles covering pretty much the same thing, and not a too lengthy thing. At the same time, "current ARM cores" isn't a good choice for an article title, as each "current" requires an "as of", what would be pointless. Thinking aloud about further steps, I'd vote for merging everything into the Comparison of ARM cores article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:08, 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 redirect to Retail Week. Missvain (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Week Conference[edit]

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

Nonnotable event. Footnotes say only kinda "Yesterday <a wise guy> spake at Retail Week Conf", i.e., no reasonable independent coverage of this forum per se. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Retail Week. I don't doubt that it's a major retailing conference, but it's very hard to find coverage of the conference itself, as opposed to who spoke there. I couldn't find any. No other articles link to it. One sentence could be copied over from the lead to the destination article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sermonise) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 13:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (spiel) @ 13:22, 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 03:40, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Margin1522's reasoning. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:21, 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) 07:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarasinghe Sirisena[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable and is written like a LinkedIn entry. Dan arndt (talk) 00:20, 24 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 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN and the fact this bloke's promoting himself. –Davey2010^Talk 05:30, 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 03:00, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written article with no demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 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) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike saffaie[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP. Google search did not bring up anything credible. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unreferenced autobiography about a non-notable personal trainer. A good faith search for significant coverage in reliable sources yielded plenty of photos of his "six pack abs" but little else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unsourced nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom- this is just promotional.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP with no indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 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 speedy Speedy deleted already . (non-admin closure) – nafSadh did say 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tausif[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:BLP Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-and saying "most popular" almost comes across as a very bias term imo (in this case-I've seen some that will say "the best ever" even) Wgolf (talk) 00:42, 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro[edit]

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

This sounds like a local bar in a small town with no history. And it's not even open anymore. It operated for all of three years and nothing important seems to have happened there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strassburguesa (talk • contribs) 04:43, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 7 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, czar ⨹ 01:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Single-location, apparently unsuccessful, short-lived, now-closed restaurant. The article lists a few references but they are standard here's-a-restaurant-in-our-area type stories. (I was almost fooled by the Huffington Post reference into thinking it got national coverage; turns out that was the Los Angeles Huffington Post.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. This really needn't have been relisted... Neutrality^talk 06:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shervin Assari[edit]

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

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

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

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

No exceptional notability exhibited. Was formerly listed for speedy deletion but I removed it thinking this venue would be better. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spammy, non-notable topic. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be a soft-money researcher rather than a tenure-track faculty member, and his citation record is not yet strong enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Ordinary society memberships are not any special honor and the one society fellowship he lists is of an obscure Iranian society whose standards I'm not familiar with. So I don't think he passes any WP:PROF criterion. And as the previous comment says, this is written in a highly promotional way that would need severe trimming if it were to be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned by user:David Eppstein. BakerStMD T|C 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Not fully agree with reasons mentioned above by user:David Eppstein. Almost every claim about Assari is supported by strong citations. His name is associated with the most prestigious award in the field of epidemiology provided by American College of Epidemiology. He is the founding editor of a peer review journal, he has received outstanding reviewer award from Elsevier, he sits on editorial board of more than 10 journals, his h index is almost 20. Among 31,000 peer reviewers, he is ranked 4. He is not tenured yet, but he is published more than average professors in this country. He has been awarded a very prestigious fellowship. He is also a Fellow of SAPHIR, an academic organization. Finally, he is on the board of directors of American College of Epidemiology, the most prestigious organization in Epidemiology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.Mick.Jackson (talk • contribs) — Rob.Mick.Jackson (talk •

contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment While the roles and awards you mention may be well documented, they do not seem to rise to the level of notability required at WP:PROF. For example, the UNHIDE project of which he is the founder appears to just be the website for his research effort. All assistant professors and even most graduate students and post-docs are the authors of manuscripts and are asked to review articles for journals. Similarly, membership in academic organizations and sitting on the boards of such organizations is not particularly notable. The University of Michigan lists him as a post-doc, which is a far cry from the full-professorship required for notability. BakerStMD T|C 17:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not DeleteReferences are valid.I can remove the bit of article for Value finding.Shervin Assari Known for Iranians.Rigard--MohandesWiki 10:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohandesWiki (talk • contribs)

Do not Delete Unfortunately I should disagree with most points made by Bakerstmd. You mentioned "All assistant professors and even most graduate students and post-docs are the authors of manuscripts and are asked to review articles for journals". They publish and review, right. They do publish, but do they publish 100 PubMed Peer review manuscripts? They do review, but do they review 170 manuscripts for more than 40 journals? Assari has received the outstanding reviewer award from Elsevier. He has been ranked 5th most active peer reviewer of the world. Are you saying Assari's work does not meet criteria for WP:PROF, but the same document says being a Fellow, being on the Board of Directors of important academic organizations, and being an Editor of top journals are some of the criteria. Assari has secured a Fellow status from a prestigious national society (SAPHIR). In addition, the Research Fellowship awarded to Assari is exclusively limited to the U.S. citizens (see the Cornely Fellowship Eligibility at CRECH, School for Public Health, University of Michigan). He is the only non-U.S. citizen who has received such a prestigious Fellowship. How many "assistant professors" have published 160 peer review manuscripts, have an h index of 18, have been ranked #5 among 30,000 reviewers, and are section editor of multiple journals in PubMed? How many assistant professors vote for the most prestigious epidemiology award in the U.S.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.Mick.Jackson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 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 Move back to draft. After being alerted about this by the original author - with whom I've had communication in the past - and given the promotion of the draft was performed by a now-blocked disruptive account, I agree with Voceditenore that this should be moved to draft and given a second chance. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aurore Tomé[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Let's start by plowing through the sources:

An IMDb entry is not dispositive evidence of notability
Neither is a photo on the IMDb
Or bare passing mention in an invite list
Or some video clip
Or some cabaret's website
Or said cabaret's self-description
Or a crufty blog post
Or being buried in a cast list for an opera
Or advertising for said opera
Or being buried in yet another cast list for said opera
Or an obscure IMDb credit
Or being in a cast list on some event page
Or some picture
Or a blowup of the same picture
Or some advertisement on a personal website
Or the same thing on the same site
Or a blurb about some artist on the site of an art gallery hosting said artist
Or another photo on the IMDb
Or another obscure IMDb credit
Or more IMDb stuff
Or some other cast list on some directory
Or even more IMDb stuff
Or still more IMDb
Or some bare passing mention
Or a final IMDb attempt

Well, that's about it in a nutshell. We have no indication the subject passes WP:ARTIST, and none that she meets the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Notability is conferred by interviews on French Television, shows on L'Estade de France, the name of artist appear on wikipedia page of Métal Hurlant Chronicles, the invitation at Cannes on "Young Artist" setion. Is my opinion.

But I think it must be intervene here user Lynctekrua, who accepted the article to sustain his action. Thank you.Leedskalnin (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but move back to draft space. Leedskalnin, Lynctekrua will not be responding here. He has been indefinitely blocked [8] for pretending to be an administrator and hacking a script allowing him to review articles after he had been banned from Articles for Creation for inexperience and the poor quality of his reviews [9]. I'm afraid your draft has been a victim of this. It was not ready for article space and should never have been moved there. As Biruitorul points out, the references simply do not establish her meeting the criteria for inclusion, nor does she pass the alternative criteria at WP:ARTIST. I myself did a search for better sources, and could not find any. Having said that, it is possible that there may be some print sources available, or that in the near future there may be articles published in independent reliable sources that focus substantially on her or her work (not passing mentions). Thus, I would recommend returning this to draft space for further work rather than complete deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Voceditenore, thank you for your observation.I was induced in error by this user Lynctekrua.It is regretable that this kind of actions can happen in wikipedia.Is a serrious signal of alarm. Please note that I have not connection with him.I hope that my article don't be deleted completely but moved to Draft space.Leedskalnin (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have no connection with him, Leedskalnin, and I'm just sorry that you were one of the casualties of his misdeeds. Fortunately, he was caught pretty fast. I'm sure there won't be a problem in returning this to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 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) 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of South Carolina February 2015 Shooting[edit]

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

Just another all-too-common murder-suicide. The location adds no significance to the event. WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting issues here. WWGB (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic for the families and those whose job it is to clean up the mess. But otherwise, a routine domestic dispute that ended in another sad but non-notable murder-suicide. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious WP:NOTNEWS case. Murder suicides, according to one source I read, happen more than a thousand times a year in the U.S. This one his hardly remarkable by any definition. There will be no lasting notability to this event. It's just a minor footnote in history. For evidence of that, have a look at one of the references used in the article which points to this local news story regarding the shooting. They talked with Pat Bowman, who was held hostage in the 1984 event. In his words these are isolated incidents. The gravity of these events is very, very low. Evidence of that is that the Zeltner suicide on campus is not even mentioned in the main University of South Carolina article. I don't think this murder-suicide should even be in the main article, much less have its own article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable to say the least. Murder-suicides involving only one murder victim are common every day in the world. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are. But that's completely irrelevant. Anything that gets this much attention needs an article, whether it's an ordinary thing or an unusual thing. Everyking (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you mind telling me how this got so much attention? I'm an avid news-watcher and I didn't hear about anything relating to this shooting until I saw this article. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. The nature of the event is irrelevant here; the only thing that matters is how much attention it got. Everyking (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "how much attention it got" seems limited to two local TV stations and one local newspaper. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a routine domestic violence incident when it is a shooting on a college campus, the victim is a professor of Arab descent, and it gets nearly as much national and international attention Daily Mail as if was a terrorist mass shooting. There is a pattern of editors trying very hard to delete any incident that has an even remote possibility of being motivated by terrorism using domestic violence as a cover story. Being one of a series of college and shopping mall shootings is certainly notable. Redhanker (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not part of some grand conspiracy trying to delete any category of anything, much less things motivated by terrorism. Second, there's no evidence presented anywhere to suggest this event is linked to a series of college and shopping mall shootings. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not sure why you are addressing this "keep" guy he is a sock for a baned user and from my observation has mental problems--70.190.111.213 (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Transcendence (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detete I usually don't call for deletions of subjects like this, but shootings this small are better off being mentioned on the college's Wikipedia page than having a full article. It's just not notable enough, despite how tragic it is. BenBuff91 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic, to be sure, but also pretty clearly a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a notable event worthy of encyclopedic coverage, it is simply news that is sadly becoming all too common. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 07:12, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hits! – The Very Best of T. Rex[edit]

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

Searched and this does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I liked T. Rex back in the day, this is just another non-notable "greatest hits" collection sent to stores but pretty much ignored by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 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) 07:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorian Giotto[edit]

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

This software doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG. There are no references in the article other than the official website, and a web search didn't turn up anything other than blog posts or links to download the software. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched for secondary sources via Bing and the result was nil. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Phone version history[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The templates used in the version history page will be deleted, but they have been merged with their respective parent articles; the version history page is now redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGeneric (talk• contribs) 21:26, February 6, 2015‎ (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator See discussion at the bottom of page. NeoGeneric (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though one might quote that Wikipedia is not a changelog but concerning several mobile operating systems this has become the rule, I won't necessarily vote either keep or delete because the tables have been merged into their respective subject-pages, but iO.S., Google Android, the Microsoft Xbox 360, and the Microsoft Xbox One all have their respective pages of version history/development history, and it's also quite notable that despite the fact that Windows Phone 8 and Windows Phone 7.X aren't compatible, they do still belong to the same line of products and Windows Phone 8 is a mere Windows N.T.-version of Windows Phone 7.5 (Mango). I can see the "usefulness" of this page, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an online guide to [kindly insert subject here], though it does often link to those sites (see: further reading, official websites, sources, download links, Etc.) and the fact that they're moved to their respective articles in an easy to navigate way kind of defeats the purpose of this article, I've changed my mind, as much as this pains me to say (as this has always been one of my favourite Windows Phone-related articles) I'll have to say Delete because it serves no function, and upon its deletion nothing will be lost anyhow, it would just require a few more clicks and a handful of tabs, and it's more encyclopedic to list them in the manner as NeoGeneric has placed them.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with all your sentiment. Some of the concerns that I had in maintaining the single page as it was, is due to the lack of continuity (or perceived) of Windows Phone to Windows 10 which was detrimental to the purpose of the article. Unlike iOS or Android, Windows Phone hasn't been able to enjoy the same relatively smooth continuity and branding.

I would also like to say in supporting argument for deletion, in terms of functionality, how many people used the page to check the change logs of Windows Phone 7, 7.5 or 7.8? I would content this same principle for the iOS and Android pages; having all of the versions lumped together can be useful, but it is less encyclopedic and ~~likely more cumbersome to the average user who is checking on the details about the latest OS updates. (Imagine what the iOS page will look like if it gets to version 40?!)~~ <- this argument is probably flawed, so long as the pages are organized appropriately. NeoGeneric (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was against the deletion initially because I had moved all the content to templates which I have since learned is not what the templates are for. I don't think there is any need to rush the deletion of this page now that the content is out of template namespace, at least until we see what happens with the iOS version history page (I've put up a notice there for inappropriate template usage) and there is a bit more certainty regarding Windows 10.

Cheers! NeoGeneric (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, every other OS has its own page that contains the same content. This isn't limited to just smartphone OSes like iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Symbian and BlackBerry, but even operating systems like Xbox 360 and One, PlayStation Portable, 3, Vita and 4, all Wii and DS consoles, etc. I get why you would want to remove them, but I think its better to link from the pages from these versions of Windows Phone to the version history, like it is done for all other operating systems too. It gives a better overview and makes it much clearer to readers.--84.195.214.118 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to go either way, but I'd like to get the consensus of a few others before a decision is made. NeoGeneric (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is really for the deletion of this page, it was only nominated for deletion because it was filled with templates and those have been superseded by wikitables now, I don't see much reason for any deletion, though we'd essentially provide double information now by having them both in the respective "parent" articles and in this page, but honestly I too could go either way, I haven't seen any viable arguments for deletion (and I personally made equal arguments for and against so I don't see myself as having "voted" for either), maybe having a table in both the version and the version history could work, but I honestly like both models, I like having the ability to easily navigate within the article itself, but one could also claim that it's "double wording" as the article itself describes them in detail, so this page would be more about the "raw features" and the articles would explain in detail what they do, anyhow I can see why one would like to (not) keep this article.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly would simply go with this article and put a link on the parent articles to the corresponsings sections. No reason to delete it. This is one handy overview. --188.118.58.159 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that's a good idea. I'll do that within the next day unless someone else can do it in the meantime. NeoGeneric (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've changed my mind and am opposing the deletion, I will remove the notice within 1 days time unless someone else does it or is in favor of deletion. NeoGeneric (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no-one wants this page to go, the only reason the notice was there to begin with was because of the templates that previously inhabited this page, I copy-pasta'd the wikitables the day it was decided to delete the templates so this decision is long over-due, but it should be made clear that Windows 10 Mobile should not appear on this page as it's not Windows Phone-branded and should keep its wikitable on its own page like the P.C. version of Windows 10, but before you'll remove the wikitables from the respective articles let me suggest a manner how they can both stay and we can have this page (a cake and eat it too).

Main article: Windows Phone Version History

See also: Windows Phone 7 § Version History and Windows Phone 8.1 § Version History

Of-course I know that duplicates aren't welcome but both formulas are quite functional, anyway the choice is up to you if you want to remove them from the O.S. articles themselves.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the pages, but I removed the wikitables from the parent articles, because duplications isn't a good idea (even though I don't think there will be many further updates to the tables). I also added a Windows 10 section to the page, but made it only very brief and clear that it isn't part of the Windows Phone brand. I kept the sections in the parent articles, but they now only contain a redirect to the version history page. NeoGeneric (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article but rename (move) it, as, say, for example, List of Windows Phone versions. It is easier to understand as it is exactly as the title suggests, a list of all versions of the Windows Phone operating system, because that is what this page really is about. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged article content onto the page so it is now a "true" version history and no longer just a bunch of lists. NeoGeneric (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed changes to the various affected pages, so please let me know of any issues with what I've done! Cheers :) NeoGeneric (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted - A7 by Verrai. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puddin'[edit]

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

Non-notable comic, notability not established for over 3 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 01:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it as an A7 speedy since it's essentially a non-notable YouTube series. Even if it does somehow squeak by notability guidelines enough to where a speedy does qualify, this is still pretty non-notable. I can't see where it has been the focus of any in-depth coverage nor where it has won any notable awards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 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 merge to Greer, South Carolina. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greer Fire Department[edit]

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

Town of 27,000. The only newsworthy event happened before the department was founded. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – as generally preferable to delete, don't know why this didn't occur to me. ~~Delete – Good for the town, that they are keeping the history of the Fire Department. But I can't see how this is notable for WP.~~ – Margin1522 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 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 02:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Greer, South Carolina. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not finding many sources so pending their appearance we should merge up into a more general article such as Greer, South Carolina per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with just a few hits on Google (with respect, only in western script. Indian script/search engines might reveal more) The Banner talk 14:00, 23 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 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gladrags -I'm able to find some sort of coverage of subject in some Indian reliable sources such as, -[10], [11], [12]. However, they simply are not adequate to establish GNG and justify a standalone article. Given that parent article "Gladrags" is a stub one, we may expand that one extracting contents from sources found. We must not add contents from existing article to parent article, they all appear to be an WP:OR being unsourced. As there are few reliable sources that mention the subject and there exists a parent article that is stub, a redirect to the parent article appears to me a good alternative to deletion.

I will also here note that there appears to be some coverage of subject in the Indian magazines too while doing Google Books search, but one is unable to take a closer look at them as they almost are having snippet view. Even if that's the case, -WP:RUNOFTHEMILL applies. The notability of the parent article is not established to this point, and we may use all these sources to make that one better. We really can't use same set of references to make two standalone articles. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sourcing is poor at present, I can't fathom how these national contests could not be notable. Aside from poor refs, the article is quite well-done. The tables would serve as a handy central repository for various existing pageant contestant articles failing WP:Bio to be redirect/salted into. (In fact, even if the closing admin does delete this article, I recommend he not do so before checking all the "blue" names first.) Pax 08:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gladrags Manhunt (when the contest was not unisex) was popular contest, their winners are notable actors John Abraham, Dino Morea, Zulfi Syed. It also sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International. The female Contest, Megamodel, was never too famous. The contest was also part of a reality show on Channel V in 2013. There is coverage of the contest [13] in the winner's biographies, plus annual coverage (photos) etc. in various magazines, telecast on TV etc. 2008 Outlook, 2001 India Today, 2008 Times of India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Redtigerxyz. Covered in high-profile Indian media. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:13, 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) 07:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So Goodbye[edit]

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

Please see WP:NSONG: this song may have charted, reaching a very modest #28 on the Gaon chart, but it needs to pass the WP:GNG first, and I see no evidence that it does--the sourcing here is allkpop and Naver, and those aren't reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. It's rare for songs to merit their own articles, per WP:SONG. It's even rarer for an individual song from a Korean drama soundtrack to attain notability. No evidence that this one did. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure of WP:GNG. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails NSONG + GNG ...... So goodbye..... (Someone had to ruin the joke! ) –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 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 Samina Chowdhury. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Jhinuk Phota Sagorbelay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though the song exists and its singer may well be notable, I could find no evidence that the song was notable per WP:NSONG. Possibly some such evidence exists in the Bengali language, but I couldn't find any there either. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough notable to be kept in wiki. Although the singer is well notable. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:24, 23 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 02:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samina Chowdhury as a worthwhile redirect (it's mentioned directly in the article). The real question is whether anything in the artist's article can be sourced. czar ⨹ 14:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samina Chowdhury would be better. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stykz[edit]

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

No evidence that this software is notable. All the references lead to blogs, web forums, or non-independent sites. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find were sites offering this software for download; no significant coverage in third-party sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:12, 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 02:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references; The Dawn.com ref wasn't loading for me, and may be RS, but on its own, with all the other refs being download sites, forums, or associated with the developer, even if Dawn.com is a solid ref, one ref is typically not enough to establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 11:08, 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. Missvain (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kakran[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable sources and is fully based on self promotional sources. Mahensingha _Talk 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. A search of Indian newspapers here did not reveal anything of substance; none of the current sources are inline citations, and while that is not a reason for deletion, there are other problems with the article. What the article lede does not clarify is why is this subject notable? Needed are references which are neutral, in-depth, secondary, reliable, which address this issue clearly; if they can be found I am willing to change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, the existing sources that appear in article are most probably not reliable sources and represent view of authors that belong or sympathize to this caste group. There are zero hits on Google books and WP:INDAFD search engines. Anyway, I'm open to amend my !vote if someone is able to find some good sources and willing to fix the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:01, 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 merge to Asha Bhosle. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightingale of Asia[edit]

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

An article that can not be expanded further. Can't find much information about the award. Only found that it was awarded to Asha Bhosle in 1987. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Asha Bhosle, where it's already mentioned. Many reliable sources mention this award, e.g. [14][15][16][17] and it seems that this was sometimes used as a nickname, e.g., [18][19], so it could be a reasonable search term. But I also found no particular need for a separate article about the award. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 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 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Arxiloxos. Feel free to point out if I was mistaken here, but to me this article seems to claim that this award was a one-off event and exclusively given to Bhosle. IMO it is reasonable to consider the award a synonymous title to Bhosle and redirect there. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major General Purna Chandra Thapa[edit]

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

Non-notable, creator has claimed alot in article without any solid proof, it needs solid sources. Lacks notability and coverage in bunch of reliable sources. Fails WP:BLP. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 20:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: All the informations are well referenced now.-- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 00:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @A.Minkowiski may also wish to bundle the following UN officials whose articles have been edited or created by the same user: Hafiz Masroor Ahmed (plagiarized from this), Simon Munzu (similar cut-n-paste of puffery-laden UN press-release listed as ref, as are the others that follow here), Joakim Reiter, Atul Khare, Sandra Mitchell (UNRWA), Moustapha Soumaré, Lise Grande, Raisedon Zenenga, Cristina Gallach, Lenni Montiel, Peter Thomas Drennan, Issaka Souna, Luciano Portolano, Bettina Tucci Bartsiotas, Arnauld Antoine Akodjènou, Yiping Zhou, Antonio Vigilante, Said Djinnit, Salihu Zaway Uba, María Eugenia Casar, Jessica Faieta, Aurélien Agbénonci. ...and I'm sure I've missed eleventy more. Note: some of these bios may meet minimal WP:soldier or WP:politician criteria, but articles consisting almost entirely of copy-vio warrant nuking. Pax 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per SOLDIER and to counter anti-Third World bias. Nepalese officers don't get as much press as their First and Second World counterparts, but in addition to his UN posting, he is mentioned here and there,[20][21] even in a Wikileaks document. Plus he's a major general, not a lowly brigadier. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several posts he held. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:SOLDIER, and his U.N. service in Lebanon just adds to his notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources demonstrated. We're showing our systemic bias again. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SOLDIER. Although when deleted the article needed work, that is not a reason for deletion, see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:SOLDIER, for consistency. Personally I'm of the view that WP:SOLDIER is too liberal as there are a bunch of major generals in the world who wouldn't be notable at all per WP:GNG. However a little WP:GOOGLETESTing threw up a bunch of secondary sources (and some interesting stuff on Wikileaks, though I don't know that that counts as a WP:SECONDARY source). Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:ORG Deunanknute (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 23 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, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio" (in quotes) shows only facebook and business listings. non-notable per WP:NONPROFIT Deunanknute (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The organization recently had a name change from Hebrew Free Loan Association to Hebrew Free Loan Association of Northeast Ohio. Please see recent articles one the organization: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=%22hebrew+free+loan+association%22+cleveland&safe=off. I am surprised to hear that a continuously existing 111-year-old non profit that has served over 25,000 people in an area as small as Cleveland can be non-notable? Davide101 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's 110 years old and the article already has several reliable sources; searches for <"Hebrew Free Loan Association" Cleveland> identify others, such as an entry in the Encyclopedia of Cleveland [22]. If this long-lived charity is deemed insufficiently notable for its own article, some of the content and sources from here might be appropriately incorporated at Gemach or International Association of Hebrew Free Loans. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in the Cleveland Plains Dealer was expressly about the subject. Pax 08:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Press. Here's additional news coverage on the Free Loan's predatory lending relief programs: http://www.cleveland.com/consumeraffairs/index.ssf/2015/01/payday_stores_put_barriers_bet.html Davide101 (talk) 17:35, 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 01:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources brought forth during this deletion debate show that this charity, going back well over a century, is notable. Disclosure: my wife and I received an interest-free loan from the Hebrew Free Loan Association in San Francisco many years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 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 no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Tyrol quality mark[edit]

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

NN trademark advert for regional goods. Promotional in tone with little to no secondary sources not immediately associated with the products being promoted. Previously CSD under slightly different title for copyvio. Gaff (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South Tyrol/Alto Adige is well known fot the quality of its foods, an article regading is quality mark is notable.User:Lucifero4

comment not to press the point... But whether or not the cuisine from this region is tasty is outside the scope of this review. The question is if there are reliable secondary sources to confirm notability of the trademark. Gaff (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 08:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think you're looking at it quite correctly. This appears to be better characterized as a Collective trade mark or a Protected Designation of Origin rather than an advert. People are very averse to WP:OSE, but sometimes other stuff does exist, like Guaranteed Irish, Appellation d'origine contrôlée, DOC etc. As to the WP:SECONDARY, a little WP:GOOGLETESTing suggested to me that there were plenty of secondary sources. Perhaps the better remedy is to tag the page for more citations. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:08, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request from nominator please close as keep or no consensus, as this has been up for long enough. Gaff (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ché Aimee Dorval[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for advertisement, but its author says that it was not advertisement or autobiography. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines for biographies of musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 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) 07:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Pickle Tradition[edit]

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

Self-published Christmas storybook, fails WP:NBOOK with no secondary sources other than blogger reviews. The Illumination Book Awards does not appear to be a "major literary award" that would pass NBOOK. McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses two secondary sources, in addition to the blog sources. Their is an article from the New Times Broward-Palm Beach as well as Main Line Parent. Wick01778 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)— Wick01778 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. The issue here is that the award isn't particularly noteworthy. It's a minor award and not the type that would really be considered to give notability as a whole on Wikipedia. Don't take this badly- most awards don't give notability on Wikipedia and I always like to say that less than 2-5% of any award ever given to anyone (which includes sports, literature, politics, etc) would count towards notability and of that percentage, less than 1% would be the type that would merit a keep on that basis alone. It doesn't help that 2014 appears to be the first time the award was given out (meaning that this has only been ongoing for 2 years) and that there is little to no coverage of the award itself in the media. The only people that appear to be talking about the award are the award winners, their publicists and publishers, and non-usable blog sources and we'd need quite a bit of coverage to show that the award is particularly noteworthy even to give partial notability. Of the sources on the article, only this source would be remotely usable as far as reliable sources go. This source is WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it cannot give notability and this one reads like it was taken very heavily from a press release. It also doesn't help that it was not written by a staff member and that people can submit things to be sponsored or otherwise marketed on their site. This is a blog entry and even if the blog is popular, that does not automatically mean that the blog would be one of the rare exceptions to the WP:SPS rule. This is also a blog entry and falls under the same guideline. Most self-published sources (in this case blogs) will not be usable for notability purposes because they undergo little to no editing and it's hard to tell how transparent they are in their review process. Most review blogs are fairly honest in my experience, but that still does not make them a reliable source per Wikipedia's RS guidelines, which are very strict. Now even if we were to count the MainLine Parent source as reliable, that's only two sources and it doesn't really give a very in-depth coverage of the book as a whole. This book just doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant an entry at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:The Christmas Pickle Tradition. I agree with Tokyogirl79's analysis that the book doesn't yet meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Only one article^WebCite from the New Times Broward-Palm Beach provides significant coverage of the subject.
The book was published in October 2014; there may be reviews about it in the future. To preserve this editor's hard work, I support moving to the draft namespace where the editor can work on it if/when new sources surfaces.
Cunard (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possibility, but I'm slightly worried that it'd never pass notability guidelines and that it'd just sit in the draftspace until it gets deleted months later as a G13 candidate. The thing about books is that if they don't get the coverage the first time out of the gate, the odds of them getting the coverage later on down the line shrink dramatically to the point where it's in the "struck twice by lightening in the same spot" type of odds range. Basically, I'm just worried that transferring it to draftspace would just be delaying the inevitable, not to mention that some AfC members tend to have a strong tendency to approve articles that fail notability guidelines pretty spectacularly. I'd much prefer that this be deleted and if the book gains more coverage, that they go through deletion review with the new sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any harm in moving the article to draftspace in the event that sources do surface. The benefit is that the creator's hard work is not erased so can be reused.
It is possible that The Christmas Pickle Tradition might receive more coverage around Christmas 2015, so I don't think it's a lost cause that it will never pass the notability guidelines. If no sources surface by January 2016, speedy deleting the draft under G13 will take very little time. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the Broward Palm Beach source is reliable, it is not enough on its own to pass WP:NBOOK. The Illumination Book Award seems to have just been started in 2013, and so does not confer notability. [23] Google didn't turn up any more reliable sources. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this book. Everymorning talk 00:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Everymorning: this book does not yet meet WP:NBOOK. Shanata (talk) 16:38, 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.

[1] "10 teams confirmed for 2013 Jubilee Trophy women's championship". insoccer.ca. Retrieved 7 February 2015.

[2] "Kirby cruises to another Jubilee Trophy title". thetelegram.com. Retrieved 7 February 2015.

[3] "Donnelly: Matriarch for club and country". fifa.com. Retrieved 7 February 2015.

[4] "Canada Soccer Senior Women's Jubilee Trophy Final". sportscanada.tv. Retrieved 7 February 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]