Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 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. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond and the Fosters Novel and Feature Film[edit]

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

Article about a children's book and a film made from it. The book is this one, and it seems from this thread that the publisher is a vanity press (author pays). The film on Youtube consists of five segments totalling under an hour, with from 2,000 to 5,000 views. This is far short of the notability standards of WP:Notability (books) or WP:Notability (film). JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too soon for either book or film to have an article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wish the author and the crew well, but it's just too soon for either to really have an article here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM and WP:NBOOK Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foam Field[edit]

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

Foam Field appears to be a real thing but some part of the page make no sense. Especially, the section "Work on unsolved problems in physics" seems unrelated and pasted from somewhere else. I would suggest delete and recreate but I would like more opinions. Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable unpublished WP:FRINGE theory, and so poorly expressed as to almost be WP:Patent nonsense. The author of the article is the same "David Woroner MA Industrial Tech" who proposed the idea, so there is a serious WP:COI here too. -- 120.23.74.190 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, and WP:Patent nonsense.PianoDan (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is incoherent. Maybe redirect to quantum foam, after application of WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:05, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Field (priest)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering I added the 'notability' tag after coming across this and other articles about Nottingham parish priests. No doubt a worthy profession but insufficient on its own to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's the subject of a biography as is noted already in the article which is fairly widely cited e.g.. He was not notable as a priest particularly, but he was the headmaster of several important schools. He's also known as an education reformer link. He is a figure in Maugham scholarship 1 2 3. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the subject of a biography from a major publisher. This was a poor nomination. St Anselm (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence that this biography of a priest, by a specialist publisher promoting Christians, is automatic evidence of notability. Which part of WP:NOTABILITY do you feel he fits? The nearest notability criteria to your argument is WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. There are not multiple published secondary sources and this publisher's raison d'ete means it isn't entirely an independent source. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is still independent of the subject. In any case, Field is not primarily notable as a priest, but as a headmaster. St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also The History of Radley College 1847-1947 by A K Boyd. That was published by Blackwell. St Anselm (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The succession box for a Nottingham church ought not to be there, but has headmaster successively of two significant public schools he is probably notable. This is rather more significant than being a vicar who wrote a couple of NN books. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A book published by Blackwell ought to be a reliable source. A book such as this (even if it had been published by Radley College) would have been based on the school's archives, the appropriate primary sources. This is certainly WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L. Cedeño[edit]

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

I have gone through the page and deleted certain sections for this page (which I created), due to the fact that the information could not and can not be established as credible, notable or in fact noted at all. This page was my first creation and was based primarily on personal knowledge or short term mention on a website or other internet source.

Page should be deleted unless someone else can establish sufficient notability or reason for the subject should be included on Wikipedia.

Em7 (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the AfD nomination. Note: WP:G7 is not applicable because other users have extensively edited the page in the past. ansh 666 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet guidelines. The only significant coverage I found in a search is the entry at NPR Second Stage, already cited in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:53, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PROUD Principle[edit]

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

The topic is one of those cheesy customer-service motivational acronyms you might see in the break room at a Walmart. The article is referenced, but the sources are either irrelevant (about customer service in general, or other acronyms for the same thing), or primary. In particular, the "PROUD principle" publication was self-published in 2014 by one J. Smart. Article was created by User:123jms. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as pointed out by Opabinia there is evidence that the self-published author of PROUD is also the article's creator (implying self-promotion of a non-notable concept). Many handy references but they are for other business acronyms. —Noah 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-comment: weaving in Maya Angelou was a nice touch for adding a scent of importance. —Noah 22:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT for promoting a non-notable book you wrote yourself. In a quick Google search just now, the ONLY reference I found to this principle was the Wikipedia article. As Noah pointed out, the author did a nice job of name-dropping in the article (Maya Angelou was only one of several), but it does not add to the concept's notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 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) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Mexico[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local band that isn't notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh Baboo[edit]

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

Was unsure to do a A7 or a XFD-went with this in the end. Seems to be a very unotable director with no info Wgolf (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I was just about to put a PROD it. The subject is a student making a YouTube movie. That is not notable enough for an article even though the local newspaper gave it a quick write-up. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah the newspaper part is nice, but almost seems like "local guy has 15 minutes of fame!"-On another note, I found this Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anirudh Baboo as well as a link to the page that went to another user (possible sockpuppets?) Wgolf (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Abandoned draft deleted as G13. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and no reliable sources available. Shanata (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete : Not at all notable. Proposing for Speedy delete.Athachil (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It fails FILMMAKER and GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 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 Deleted - G11/12 by Fuhghettaboutit. {{NAC} –Davey2010^Talk 02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaybleeng[edit]

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

Unotable singer (which I swear this has been deleted before but under a different name) Wgolf (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G11. This is so heavily an ad that it would take monumental scraping, and I see no sign that we would find anything under there. Boasted Post-Dispatch coverage is a press release on their website. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - G11 - I've tagged it as such as this is heavily promotional, There's ways of advertising yourself and WP isn't one of them!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Has been deleted but it does not mention this in the deletion log thing. Wgolf (talk) 01:35, 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. withdrawn by nominator DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvvante Naakishtam[edit]

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

~~Seems to be a unotable film. The only ref (which I got rid of) was to Youtube of all things. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Nuvvante Naakishtam

Keep per meeting WP:NF. No matter what the reference removed by the nominator contained, notability is established through diligence showing the topic being covered outside of Wikipedia. In mere seconds I found a lengthy review at IndiaGlitz. What else was missed? I am going to work on it now in expectation of a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw-I somehow didn't find any, maybe I wrote it wrong. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What I have found is the poor Anglification of Indian film titles often adds extra vowels and consonants, and usually requires some imaginative digging. For instance, in cross reference actors and titles, I found it to be a 2005 film release, and not a 2007. I'll keep on it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment-Yeah same here-quite a bit I try to find the right film on the IMDB and its spelled differently for the foreign titles. Wgolf (talk) 03:15, 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 speedy keep. SNOW close. While it is true, that the article was not in a great shape when it was nominated, the notability is established and the references are there. Tone 22:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Ribič[edit]

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

No significant coverage in US press. Only coverage in Slovinian Press seems to be articles about how good she looks in her 40's. Maybe a native speaker can find something better but I can not. Her only claim seems to be a competing in Eurovision 2000 (did not win/place or show) and a minor role in a Slovinian TV show. Does not pass WP:ENT, WP:NRV, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. JBH (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator JBH (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded the article about Tanja Ribič with additional data and references. Now it is possible to see and check in which movies she acted and her theater roles and discography. She is a well known and recognized actress and singer in Slovenia and a former Eurovision contestant, however it is hard to find English published links about her, because the roles which she had were mostly for Slovenian movies/theater/music and not getting wider attention in the English media. Prunk (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough reliable sources have been added to the article after the nomination. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.. looks like my withdrawal was an edit conflict. Did not mean to edit after the close. JBH (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praneet Sah (PNTSH)[edit]

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

Reason: Non notable person citing self published sources, press releases and unreliable sources. Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about "Praneet Sah" on internet and his articles are published in technology magazine every month. Isn't this notable enough? Moreover he's been a winner in reality TV show who's video is available as proof(I can give you link, not youtube, in fact fron NDTV's website, which is an Indian news agency). I think that this makes him notable enough to be o Wikipedia. Dahano (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment @Dahano: Please provide the links of the third party sources that you have. Please note that, a person is not considered notable in wiki just because he is winner of a competition or writes blog or an internet celebrity. People are presumed notable in wiki if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources you included in the article fall short of all these. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the "winner of a competition" page as linked by you and to tell you, the contest was on National level, organized by Nokia and Microsoft along with NDTV and was also telecasted on National News Television i.e. NDTV Profit. Following are the two links for the video as proof and they are from official NDTV's website itself:

1 Semi-Finals(selection round)--> http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/nokia-your-wish-is-my-app/your-wish-is-my-app-the-last-stop-before-the-finals/270020
2 Finals --> http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/nokia-your-wish-is-my-app/your-wish-is-my-app-the-final-countdown/271383

He has also been featured/published in Digit Magazine which is the India's largest technology magazine. Since the articles are in printed form in magazine, so still I tried searching on google and landed up on the following articles written by him in the February, 2015 edition of Digit Magazine. Page 1 http://www.readwhere.com/read/c/4415712 and Page 2 http://www.readwhere.com/read/c/4415666 And I've seen his articles since past 1 year.

These are the resources from third genuine party which does makes him notable, rest is all your wish. Dahano (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dahano: - None of the sources you provided is independent source. NDTV was the media partner of the show (closely associated with the show) hence they published the video in their site. They did not publish it as news article. The second link shows an article published by the subject of the wiki article. It is self published article not third party/independent source. So the subject fails WP:GNG. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want news form of article then I googled and found these links related to the "Nokia your wish is my app" contest and also his name is specified in those links, please check them:

1 http://www.varindia.com/nokia-concludes-nokia-lumia-your-wish-is-my-app-show/
2 http://www.limcabookofrecords.in/recordDetail.aspx?rid=1275
3 http://www.india-cellular.com/Press-Releases-2013/Nokia-15-4-2013.htm
4 http://www.dailypioneer.com/sunday-edition/foray/world/what-an-app-madamji.html

Those are news article and in written form, I believe that these qualify as sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahano (talk • contribs) 11:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : A wikipedia article for just owning a youtube channel and winning some competitions!!?? Subject should be notable enough with significant achievements to have a Wikipedia page. This subject is not falling in any of the categories. Please delete. Athachil (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Dahano: Again fails significant coverage. Subject with such trivial mentions in articles can not be considered notable. Also some of the sources are not acceptable as they are unreliable and press releases. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 14:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It blatantly fails each and every Wikipedia's notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment - Should probably be run through some India based search engines. Edit: Given Anupmehra supports deletion and I know he/she knows how to use India related search engines, changed to delete. That aside, I'm leaning toward delete as the sources don't really prove notability. The third one and the first one read like press releases. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make It So[edit]

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

Prod notice deleted. No claim of notability. Only selfpub references. Dweller (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:NMUSIC. Nothing significant to assert the subject notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject is not notable according to WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. As the primary subject of the phrase "Make it so" is not the subject of this article per WP:OUTCOMES#Music this article should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable person. A search of all three names revealed nothing more than WP:CIRCULAR books of Wikipedia articles and a few self-published websites. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 17:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of third-party notability. All hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors or print on demand books with wikipedia content. However, this is a rebuttable presumption that can be overcome by evidence of independent notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can bring forward significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 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) 05:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre F. Patricio[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Does not pass WP:ARTIST. I can not find any RS to support an article (WP:NRV)). The only mentions I can find are on Facebook pages and social sites like DeviantArt. There are no references supporting any of the material in the article. JBH (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. JBH (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Not quite an unreferenced BLP, since there are some references in the External Links. However, they are notices of his participation in this event or that; nothing significantly ABOUT him. Portions of the article may have been copy-pasted from Wordpress [1]. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a shame that there aren't references for what is here, but I tried searching in Philippines news sources (the few I could find -- someone else may be more successful) and got zero hits in them. LaMona (talk) 23:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Barnes (Alaskan politician)[edit]

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

The Wikipedia page for Ronald Barnes should be deleted. It reads like a resumé or C.V. for a person who is a member of a small NGO. He has no newspaper articles tied to his name, and appears to be non-notable. Anywho2015 (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only source is an external link for a conference he attended, unable to locate any third-party, reliable sources that would confirm his notability.Fyddlestix (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I came to this expecting this would be a member of the state senate or something, but he doesn't actually appear to be a politician at all in the normally understood sense of the word. He may need policitial skills to be the "diplomatic representative" of a small NGO but that's not the same thing. Attending a notable event event as a representative of an obscure organization does not confer notability on the attendee. Overall looks like a case of WP:VSCA. An article on the organization he represents would be a better place to start, if there are any sources to construct that from. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was LMFAO when I came across this article several years ago because of the pretentiousness of its wording, then promptly forgot about it. Thanks for nominating it, though it should be pointed out that this was nominated by a brand new editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia were made in a 12-minute stretch several days ago, focused solely on having this article deleted. That editor's post to the article's talk page says that Barnes is part of an "Alaskan indepedance (sic) movement NGO". My firsthand familiarity with that movement dates to the late 1970s; I can assure you that he's not a part of it. Doing a Google search, however, indicates that the tribal council in Tununak (through Barnes) is attempting an approach similar to what Joe Vogler did during the last years of his life, namely petitioning the UN. He's certainly not involved with the politics of Alaska, which is an impression one would develop by looking at the article's title and its inclusion in Category:Alaska politicians (Category:Alaska Native activists would have been a more appropriate category). I left a note at WT:IPNA linking to this discussion, as the aforementioned Google search gave a faint indication that Barnes may possibly have some name recognition in indigenous circles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename (perhaps as Ronald Barnes (Alaska Native activist) ?) and definitely needs a serious rewrite! (And it won't be me who does said rewrite). Per the inquiry of RadioKAOS, (I'm a member of WP IPNA) I'd say that there is adequate indicia of notability (or notoriety) given that it is difficult to find RS on Indigenous people, and Alaska native people in particular. I googled https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Ronald+Barnes+Alaska and of the hits that aren't WP mirrors. In particular, yes, the "appeal to the UN is kind of fringe, but it is reported officially at:

"INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND NATIONS COALITIONShadow Report for the United States of America CERD Implementation Report"

Delete - Shouldn't there be some RS for this guy if he's notable? Otherwise anyone attending a UN HR conference could have a bio. Slygrog (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending justification from indigenous community to validate his notability, which isn't evident online.

I found this in the Federal Register: Native Village of Tununak, Theodore Angaiak, President, P.O. Box 77, Tununak, AK 99681-0077; Phone: (907) 652-6527; Fax: (907) 652-6011. Someone could call and find-out if this guy Barnes is legitimate or not.

In any event, the town of Tununak has 325 residents, so being elected as a foreign affairs representative (as Barnes claims) by the "Elders of Tunanak" is kind of small-glory. DroitInternationale (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Never forget the issues of systemic bias when dealing with indigenous people, who are often "invisible" to mainstream sourcing methods.
Also don't discount a small community - if those 325 are the only living members of a given ethnic group, then that is VERY significant.
A better Google search ("Ronald Barnes Alaska") is here. Once you toss out the wikipedia mirrors and references to other people with a similar name there, we still have something. A sampling of third-party sites include the following:

International Diplomat interview
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization: yearbook
Expert paper
web site with entry on Barnes

For the above reasons, I think it best to err on the side of caution and keep. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are sources (albeit minor) available: Unrepresented Peoples Org, Amherst Media (Community TV), International Diplomat, Univ. Dayton School of Law. Also, I favor changing the page name as suggested above - Alaska Native Activist - or something similar. LaMona (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stated Delete I'm glad someone mentioned petitioning the UN - which is in no manner 'fringe': Michael Brown's family and friends came to the UN in Geneva last year to raise the political aspect of his murder. As per the article: I have contact with the subject matter in question, including, but not limited to, that petitioning-forum. Before I'm comfortable with this article being kept, I want someone here to justify that this guy is actually representing at least one body of the indigenous peoples from Alaska. Personally, I'm not convinced he's not a fraud. He's at the UN. He's going to UN meetings. He's making plenty of contacts in that context, which someone might contend is grounds for notability (and if that's so, you've got a long-list of unwritten BLPs for representatives of indigenous groups worldwide who also petition the UN). To be frank, I'm not clear Barnes is attending meetings at the UN on behalf of whom he claims sent him - as it stands, he gets invited under the auspices of other groups than his own, which isn't abnormal, but other elements of the situation are. I think that this article may be part of fabricating the appearance of the linkage (of representing an indigenous community). And if that's true, the title shouldn't be 'Native activist' but something-else. Can someone contact the group in the "Native Village of Tununak" (contact details listed above) to check Barnes-out? DroitInternationale (talk) 06:55, 16 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) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Te Pyar Hoya[edit]

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

Non-notable film BOVINEBOY2008 15:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ch an der 15:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any evidence of notability. Article previously had PROD removed without explanation.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayas (band)[edit]

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

No evidence that this group does, or ever did, meet WP:BAND. Listed sources were an expired website, another that did not mention the subject, and a WP:CIRCULAR reference to another article in Wikipedia. Could not find any reliable sources to prove this group's notability. Drm310 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Sam ^Sing! 16:56, 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, czar ⨹ 15:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator's research is convincing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Glasgow Airport Cessna 404 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but non-notable accident with few, if any, notable consequences, WP:GNG not news etc. etc. Would have been much more notable if it led to action that prevented, or warned pilots, that they were shutting down the wrong engine. see:TransAsia Airways Flight 222 Petebutt (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The AAIB accident report indicates that the engine inspection became a UK CAA mandatory airworthiness directive and also indicated that it would become an FAA mandatory requirement (more than just a recommendation). Following this up to confirm is not difficult. I believe that regulation changes are criteria that makes aircraft accident articles notable (i.e. to be kept). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AAIB report (ref 4) states clearly on page 78 that this accident resulted in the issuance of an engine airworthiness directive and thus has had a lasting effect. I have added this information to the article for clarity. Given that the accident actually did have lasting effects it meets WP:EVENT and should be kept. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have established notability we might as well close the discussion as a keeper, and I withdraw the nom but need assistance.--Petebutt (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian T. Sebàs[edit]

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

non-notable author, promotional content, probable COI, previously deleted Deunanknute (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional article on a non-notable subject. Apart from his own website, the only reference is a page which merely includes his name in a list of people nominated for an award. (Created by a single purpose account with a clear conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as James Bentogoa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 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) 06:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sandifer[edit]

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

This is an article started by a spammer which has been cleaned up slightly, but the sources that contribute its referenciness do not establish significance. Most are self-edited directory listings and the like, those which are not are basically just namechecks. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the spammer is blocked editor hippomuse. Delete per nom. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For additional clarity, note that JEHochman was the blocking administrator of hippomuse, using the rationale "COI only account" — ~~which wasn't even a blockable offense in 2012, when the block happened.~~ Correction: Block happened in Nov. 2013. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this was not a banned editor creating an article around a block, this is a run of the mill COI editor who got banned off for being a run of the mill COI editor, and then the fact of that banning is being used as some sort of circular-logic rationale implying the article must be deleted because its creator was banned for having created the article... Carrite (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not to be confused with Philip Sandifer, the Wikipedia critic, I presume. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a major figure in the field of contemporary Christian music, as the extensive discography and producing credits attest. THIS is a lengthy interview with the British website Cross Rhythms, "Phillip Sandifer: Kansas-based singer, songwriter, producer and worship leader." And HERE is substantial coverage of Sandifer in the book Hot Hits: Ac Charts 1978-2001, by Jeffrey Lee Brothers. And THIS (4th item listed) is evidence that Sandifer and his Urgent Records are covered in Vol. 3, pg. 25 of the book Rejoice! published by Center for the Study of Southern Culture, University of Mississippi, 1990. We are here to judge the inclusion worthiness of a subject under our notability rules, not the source of an article. Sandifer is clearly a GNG pass, not even mentioning how laxly we generally rule on such things in matters of popular culture. Carrite (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carrite above. I have incorporated the first two references mentioned above by Carrite into the article. Those two references along with the extensive discography listed in the article, and the long list of other references that include several references from different sources that are independent of the subject, and are verifiable reliable sources help the article subject easily pass WP:GNG. I have never understood the need to delete articles just because the creator happened to get banned later. My goal is to improve the articles with more RS, and keep the articles to help to improve the encyclopedia. WordSeventeen (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 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 merge to Calatrava, Romblon. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Calatrava, Romblon[edit]

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

Local office of a municipality with a population of around 10k. No significant coverage in WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Sources are primary and are tangential to the subject of the article. Vrac (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Calatrava, Romblon. The office does not have enough coverage to meet notability requirements, but it does contain some information that should be added to the "local government" section of Calatrava's article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not meet WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIANS. Large part of article is unsourced to reliable sources, and any verified content can be added to the Calatrava, Romblon#Local government, without a need to connect this article to the article about the municipality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 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, - The Herald (here I am) 13:13, 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 11:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge as above, same as Mayor of Corcuera, Romblon Deunanknute (talk) 13:31, 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 no consensus. I'm closing this as no consensus, instead of keep, due to the fact that one of the !votes was from a SPA. With this discussion being open for quite some time (and being relisted twice) I don't see a third relisting doing anything to benefit the discussion. The article has been updated slightly by Margin1522 (thank you). NPSAR is also in play here. Cheers. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agoro Community Development Association[edit]

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

From my research, this organization appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I could be wrong, and though! Thanks to all who participate in this discussion. Missvain (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete – I guess we don't have much choice on GNG or ORG grounds.~~ There is one page of Google results, with most of the hits being mentions in index-type articles. There were these two hits, from UN and WHO bulletins [2] [3].
- Comment – Background, what I could find. The links in the article are dead, last update in the Wayback Machine was 2007, last update to current site at acda.respectrefugees.org was 2008. One mention in a book from 2007. So hard to say if the organization exists anymore. The author created a number of articles in 2007 – all on related refugee programs, most of them flagged or already deleted for notability – and hasn't been back since. (Apparently the community that it served in Agoro is slowly coming back [4] [5]) – Margin1522 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – After another look at the two sources from the UN and WHO, I am changing my !vote to keep. Especially the UN Volunteers source was an in-depth profile, which I now think is enough for notability. And now there is the prospect that the website will be updated. If this article is updated I think it could be valuable when linked to our other articles about the conflict and the work that was done after it and today. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 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, - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following the death of our director in 2010,work on our site was lost. We are however working with respect International to get our site updated soon. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberphens (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 February 2015
- Comment I have added the above !vote by Timberphens, who had added it after blanking the page. Thanks for the information, Timberphens, but please don't blank the page – we need to keep a record of this discussion. If you could give us any new published information about the organization that would help. Also, the discussion isn't over yet, so we may end up keeping the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:26, 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, -- Sam ^Sing! 10:50, 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) 06:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catley v Herbert[edit]

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

Significance is not clear; neither is rationale of the decision . not all cases that have been subsequently cited are notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case satisfies GNG. As a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of that court are binding: [6] (subscription required). Its significance is immediately obvious: as a binding precedent it creates law that people in New Zealand have to obey. This binding effect does not depend on subsequent citation of the case (though there is plenty of discussion), but arises automatically from the fact that it is a rule of law that decisions of that court are binding. The ratio decidendi (referred to as the "rationale of the decision" in the nomination) of the case is not unclear. The ratio decidendi is clearly stated in the headnote, written by the reporter, of the report of this case in the New Zealand Law Reports at [1988] 1 NZLR 606. This case decided, in particular, for example, the meaning of the expression "financial assistance" in a statute, putting a gloss on that expression, and thereby altering what you have to do (not just in this case but in all future cases) to comply with that statute and, indeed, any other statute that uses that expression and which is in pari materia (ie the context in which the expression appears is sufficiently similar): [7]. The sources in GBooks and elsewhere clearly think this case decided something of significance. James500 (talk) 15:18, 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, Michig (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom and per the comments of James500. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:13, 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! 10:47, 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 keep. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout[edit]

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

Wikipedia shouldn't have an entry on a random website. At first blush, it would seem like this gets a lot of coverage, however, according to WP:CORPDEPTH, simple mentions and quotations don't count. Therefore it fails that guideline. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Procedural keep. This nomination has been run through AfD twice already, with two KEEP results. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a mainstay of the Contemporary Christian Music community, a review website. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've been here several times before and the reason to keep is the same. This is not just some random website, it is one of the most key independent elements in the Contemporary Christian music (CCM) genre and it is listed as a key reliable source by the WikiProject Contemporary Christian music as shown here back when the WikiProject had more contributors. It is used extensively on Wikipedia for that reason. Deleting the article would make approximately 1700 redlinks on Wikipedia. Here are other sources that note its releases: [8] and [9]. It's importance to the contemporary Christian music genre is indicated by a amount podcasts on iTunes dating back 7 years. Because CCM topics are very disinteresting to mainstream media, it's a slippery slope trying to find sources for ANY CCM topics which is why I asked members of the WikiProject to come up with a short list of major sources. You'll never see an article on CCM in the New York Times for example. Royal broil 02:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sebring[edit]

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

Simply put, this biography of a crime victim seems to fail WP:VICTIM ("The victim... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role"). Except one 2002 NYT article ([10]) all sources I see mention him in passing; if he hasn't been killed by Manson, his life up to that point wouldn't make her notable. Per said policy ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") the one-two relevant sentences should be merged to Charles_Manson#Tate_murders if the facts aren't there already (now, the Tate murders article should likely be split off into a subarticle, but that's another issue). Note that most of the article is not referenced anyway. See related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Folger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Parent. Pinging participants of the former: @Rhododendrites, MelanieN, Johnpacklambert, Cec2020, Bearian, and Lankiveil: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the ping. Yes, he fails WP:VICTIM, but he passes WP:GNG. He was quite notable for his hair styling career even before he was killed. According to sourced material in the article, he "invented a whole new way of cutting men's hair", and his techniques are still being taught 40 years after his death, via his still-existing company Sebring International. Seriously, I thought I had firmly established this person's notability with the recent sources I added: I doubled the prose portion of the article and added four new sources, all of which are about him and his career, not about the murders. The NYT article you linked to above is 3 pages long and is entirely, significantly about him and his hair styling career; it was written more than 30 years after his death which should establish his lasting significance. Oh, and as of 2013 a biopic movie about him was reportedly in the works.[11] If the murder portion of the article needs more sources, those can readily be added; but those are about the crime and thus are less important to the article than the material about HIM. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He is indeed the most borderline of the discussed Tate victims, through I am still not convinced that one reliable source (NYT article) is sufficient. Notability demands multiple sources. Of course it's just a guideline, but... let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Frykowski. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - famous in life before death. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In these related AfDs, several people have suggested that a merge to a new article Tate murders would be better than a merge to Charles Manson. See Talk:Charles Manson#Split off Tate murders? to discuss this idea. MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BabbaQ passes WP:GNG even before his murder. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:09, 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 merge to Charles Manson. Or, at editorial discretion, to a new article to be created. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Parent[edit]

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

Simply put, this biography of a crime victim seems to fail WP:VICTIM ("The victim... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role"). All sources I see mention him in passing; if he hasn't been killed by Manson, his life up to that point wouldn't make her notable. Per said policy ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") the one-two relevant sentences should be merged to Charles_Manson#Tate_murders if the facts aren't there already (now, the Tate murders article should likely be split off into a subarticle, but that's another issue). See related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Folger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Sebring. Pinging participants of the former: @Rhododendrites, MelanieN, Johnpacklambert, Cec2020, Bearian, and Lankiveil: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, either to the Manson article or to a yet-to-be-written Tate murders article. See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Frykowski. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for a keep - based on the fact that, in his death, his parents raised an important issue: class consciousness. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in the article? --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In these related AfDs, several people have suggested that a merge to a new article Tate murders would be better than a merge to Charles Manson. See Talk:Charles Manson#Split off Tate murders? to discuss this idea. MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. I would probably support a seperate article on the Tate Murders, but that can be done no matter what we decided here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd[edit]

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

Significance is not clear; neither is rationale of the decision . not all cases that have been subsequently cited are notable. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case satisfies GNG. As a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, it also satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, because decisions of that court are binding: [12] (subscription required). Its significance is immediately obvious: as a binding precedent it creates law that people in New Zealand have to obey. This binding effect does not depend on subsequent citation of the case (though there is plenty of discussion), but arises automatically from the fact that it is a rule of law that decisions of that court are binding. The ratio decidendi (referred to as the "rationale of the decision" in the nomination) of the case is not unclear. The ratio decidendi is clearly stated in the headnote, written by the reporter, of the report of this case in the New Zealand Law Reports at [1992] 3 NZLR 528. The sources in GBooks and elsewhere clearly think this case decided something of significance. I think I should observe that this case is cited in a number of ways such as:

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL James500 (talk) 16:26, 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, Michig (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:02, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Closing as whoever closes this it's gonna be the exact same result. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphany Elementary and Junior High School[edit]

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

Unsourced, may not fit notability guidelines for schools smileguy91^talk 02:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can find anything. EyeTripleE (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a handful of things. The most notable being that the school was a National Blue Ribbon School in 2011. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:49, 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) 05:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a private school so there is no school district to redirect to. The closest thing to a school district would be the Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria. EyeTripleE (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Which evidently does list the schools so redirecting there isn't such a bad idea. EyeTripleE (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Catholic High School (Bloomington, Illinois) as there sister schools and per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria which owns this school. EyeTripleE (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the diocese. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 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) 06:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed intelligence (knowledge technology)[edit]

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

There are two references which seem to be generic Semantic Web refs not about DI in particular. I did a search on "distributed intelligence" and while there were plenty of hits they were all over the map. Some were about knowledge management, some about the Semantic Web, some about distributed computing, and distributed AI. This is supposed to be according to the article a term from the Semantic Web community but I've never heard it used as a specific phrase with distinct meaning. Everything in the current article just describes examples of how semantic web technologies (e.g., RDF, OWL, etc.) work. If there was anything coherent or well referenced in this article I would say merge it with the Semantic Web article but there isn't so I think the best approach is to delete it. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 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, KTC (talk) 00:17, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unverified. Lots of external links in the text, but none of them seem germane. The article is written entirely in jargon and is largely unintelligible to the non-technical reader. The term "Distributed intelligence" is used in other contexts [13] but I don't see support for this version of the term. --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 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. Withdrawing and closing this nomination - author has requested deletion on the article's talk page; seems polite to end commentary here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - It was Speedily Deleted - G7 by Jimfbleak 10 minutes after the above withdrawal. –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Translatase as a mechanism for generating antibody specificity[edit]

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

This article has multiple problems. It's not an encyclopedia article; it's a letter/essay. It's signed with a name that happens to resemble that of the creator, User:Stanley Laham. It's a lot of fringey original research advocating for, and describing possible ways to test, the hypothesis that a "reverse translatase" enzyme might exist. It doesn't. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning, specifically it is an unsourced essay. —Noah 06:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced essay. OR. Looks like copyright violation too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not; see this edit summary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, it is an Original Research. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:28, 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most subscribed users on YouTube[edit]

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

Violates WP:IINFO. The article is a collection of data without third-party context. It will (by its nature) always suffer from WP:Recentism as well. Tgeairn (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Keep - Originally, this article was a historical listing (which is now found in the 2nd section; users who have reached peak position). In that case, I feel this is an obvious keep. As a historical listing with various references from various sources, that's a clean keep. I can see concerns for the section on top (the current most subscribed users). And while I can see the WP:Recentism coming into play for that top section, I feel that section is made in the same vain as, say, a list of NBA career scoring leaders. Now of course this isn't the smoothest comparison, but I feel it's an adequate enough one. When I first made this page, the first to subscriber milestones section wasn't as messy. I didn't imagine PewDiePie or any YouTuber hitting 34 million subscribers this quickly. I feel that section is the most vulnerable to criticism and should be trimmed. The milestones of (100K, 1million, 5million, 10million, 25million should be kept in some form or another though). Now, I feel this shouldn't have been tagged for AfD without a discussion on how to improve the article first. Without that last messy section I mentioned, this article still has a rane of 20-30 solid references, so that's why I'm voting keep. Soulbust (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Does not violate WP:IINFO at all. The listing of youtube channels at the page is neither indiscriminate nor excessive. It's a useful historical record of which channels have achieved the status of most subscribed, the amount of time held, and which channels have achieved specific milestones first. The first section serves as a snapshot of the current climate of the site. It would violate WP:IINFO if it attempted to list a ridiculous number of channels, but the current consensus to only list the ones with over 10,000,000 subscribers is not cause for any concern. Just like how List of countries and dependencies by population gives an up-to-date representation of population around the globe, this page should provide a picture of subscribers on the site. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I can see where the concern is coming from, but this topic is something that gets discussed in the media on a somewhat regular basis. It's not indiscriminate in that in order to get on the list you must have a very large number of followers over a certain amount and right now the list only has 19 people on the list. It also doesn't include channels, which may have otherwise made the list somewhat unwieldy. It probably could be tightened in a few places but that's something to discuss on the article talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to White House intruders. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 White House fence jumper[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS apply to this article right know. Nothing that White House intruders can't include is here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment as article creator: This incident received a lot of media coverage and is clearly notable. Just a handful of sources are posted on the article's talk page. Time would be better spent expanding the article than debating its deletion. See 2011 White House shooting for an example of what this article could look like. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handful of sources (there are many more online)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/22/white-house-fence-jumper/17747975/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29738984
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/white-house-intruder-taken-down-4490222
http://www.naij.com/309832-nigerian-dominic-adesanya-breaks-white-house-security.html
http://www.cbs.com/shows/cbs_evening_news/video/1Axys_wKYhXqMIy3xYr9NYMxN99lfdwA/guard-dogs-help-thwart-latest-white-house-fence-jumper/
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2024856389_whitehousedogsxml.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/latest-white-house-jumper-had-similar-incident-in-july-had-mental-evaluation/2014/10/23/c4f28df0-5ac0-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/dominic-adesanya-white-house-fence-jumper-charged-with-assault-108366.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/white-house-fence-jumper-dominic-adesanya-mentally-ill-father-says-1711114
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/23/358378504/second-white-house-fence-jumper-had-been-arrested-before
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/nbc-news-reports-white-house-fence-jumper-is-from-harford-county/29291040
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/23/white-house-fence-jumper-has-mental-health-issues-dad-says/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/221615-7-charges-for-alleged-wh-fence-jumper
http://documents.latimes.com/dominic-adesanya-complaint/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/23/white-house-dogs-return-to-duty-after-fence-scuffle/
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/772e3827610f48439428e1f7f2074731/man-apprehended-after-jumping-white-house-fence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/white-house-jumper-dominic-adesanya-ordered-by-judge-to-mental-health-facility-for-evaluation-and-treatment/2014/10/27/3127e16e-5e0e-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/white-house-fence-jumper-deemed-incompetent
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/politics/white-house-fence-jumper-outburst/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-house-intruder-dominic-adesanya-forcibly-removed-court-article-1.1989003
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accused-white-house-fence-jumper-dominic-adesanya-shouts-court-n234956
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-white-house-jumper-20141028-story.html
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1036138-dominic-adesanya-idd-as-white-house-fence-jumper-instagram-photos/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/dominic-adesanya/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/judge-orders-latest-white-house-fence-jumper-held-without-bond/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/27/white-house-fence-jumper-court_n_6056602.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/latest-white-house-fence-jumper-has-courtroom-outburst/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810083/Accused-White-House-intruder-dragged-court-ruled-incompetent.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Dominic-Adesanya-23-Deemed-Not-Competent-for-Trial-After-Jumping-White-House-Fence-280554332.html
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/12/dominic-adesanya-white-house-fence-jumper-to-appear-in-d-c-court-110034.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E explains why "[receive] a lot of media coverage" is not warrant for an article and "clearly notable" hardly (really hardly) is explained by the current article. I didn't know the article was still in development. I arrived through the Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. At first I thought to open an RM, as the whole article was discussing Dominic Adesanya in the event itself (you have edited it, but the whole page still being about Adesanya's incident). But even if moved, it was still about Adesanya in a single event. Solely because 2011 White House shooting is a good article, doesn't mean 2014 White House fence jumper has equal notability (and the 2011 incident, in my view, is also a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and it would be a counter-point if you FAC it). This is the White House, a high profile building that receives millions of visits yearly, incidents will happen in and outside of it. Sources obviously will report them as it is the residence of one of the most important Presidents in the world (regardless the name of the President that's living there), but that's it, it was just a fence jumper, no one was harmed, and all sources are/were/will be about 1) how he jumped, 2) why he jumped, 3) what happened to him, 4) what happened to other people inside White House (if something really happened) and (in this case) 5) Adesanya's mental health. Search "Kid asks" in the White House in Google and you will also receive coverage: [14][15][16][17][18] Does these kids' "20Q" deserve a Wikipedia page? No. Does this event need a Wikipedia page? No. White House intruders can easily contain this incident, and other similar incidents can be explained further as well. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 06:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (edit conflict) There was more than one person who scaled the White House fence last year (at least four, plus a toddler who got away from his parents), so the article title is ambiguous at best. This incident also received far less press and was far less controversial than Omar Gonzalez (who actually entered the East Room). WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:GNG certainly apply. This incident really deserves nothing more than what is already on White House intruders. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 06:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to suggest a more appropriate article title, but I think if disambiguation is the goal we should only make that an issue if another article is created about a 2014 "fence jumping" incident. There is also an article for Omar J. Gonzalez at 2014 White House intrusion, which also needs to be expanded. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article title isn't in question, as the article is not notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary because a story is less covered over time. per WP:NOTTEMPORARY.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTTEMPORARY says: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Despite the name of the page, it still being about Adesanya. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is clearly notable for Wikipedia and gained International attention. I don't think there should even be a deletion discussion about this, the article should be kept. CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Clifford Reel, Leland William Modjeski, Robert W. Pickett, Pamela Morgan, Catalino Lucas Diaz, etc. Are you really suggesting we should create a page every time somebody unauthorized enters the White House? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the entries generate as much coverage as this one did, then yes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tbhotch, in nominating this article for deletion are you taking into consideration that one of the reasons it received so much media attention is because the incident occurred shortly after secret Service director Julia Pierson resigned following several other White House incidents? And that numerous sources comment on the timing and ongoing concerns of security (which can be covered in 'Background' and 'Aftermath' sections in the article) rather than just the incident of a man jumping over a fence?

While I have your attention, I am the main contributor and good article nominator for 2011 White House shooting. I'm bothered by the fact you think it may be a BLP1E and NOTNEWS violation, as I do intend to nominate it for FAC eventually. Did you take into consideration that three years after the event occurred, a thorough report on the issue generated just as much (if not more) media coverage, and that said report was cited as one of the reasons Julia Pierson resigned? This 'one event' had major consequences and coverage several years later. I'm curious, what's your opinion on the article 2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches, and the other three 'successful' articles listed at White House intruders? Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly doubt this event gained "so much media attiention" due to Pierson's resign. I posted five different people above, and all have thousand of hundreds of GHits (including false positives). As I said above, it is simply because this is the White House (by "White House" I mean "Government of the US" not "The White House" as a building). If something so trivial, absurd or polemic happens with the Government is news worthy (during election time these situations get even more attention). My opinion regardless the name or situation (call it "2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches" or "2011 White House shooting", or etc.) is similar, the articles are giving too much attention to an US-related issue that lasted one day, that hardly impacted in the US history, and the references only work as a place where you can verify that somebody did something at the White House (they can be 10/20/100). These articles will not have the same releance or impact as an assassination attempt or something similar. The only article that in my view is relevant is "2014 White House intrusion", and not because of Gonzalez's intrusion, but because Gonzalez made another non-related felony. He doesn't apply to BLP1E anymore and in fact the article should be called "Omar J. Gonzalez". Another issue, as I said above and Believer said "Yes", is that "we should create a page every time somebody unauthorized enters the White House [as long as they appear in multiple sources]". With this we are basically inciting people that want a Wikipedia page (or in general be famous) to jump the White House's fences or enter to it. Being realistic they would be a few, but remember John Hinckley, Jr.'s motivation to kill Reagan. There's nothing here (now) that can't be posted at White House intruders, and that page has potential to be a featured list if someones works in it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to White House intruders, per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge if anything significant is not at the combined article yet). WP:NOTNEWS - this received lots of coverage for one day, clearly failing WP:PERSISTENCE. WP:NOTTEMPORARY does not apply as notability would have to exist in the first place for that to kick in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am probably just supposed to let people state their opinions and not respond, but I should point out that this incident did not just receive coverage for one day. Much information has been published about his previous threats, his background and mental history, his court appearances, etc., not to mention indirect connections to the string of White House intrusions of recent. I've seen Wikipedia articles with much less detail than this story received, and so far the article only draws information from a handful of the many sources which discuss the incident. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - NOTNEWS is the worst of all guidelines.. as Wikipedia is based on news. Wikipedia is news source based.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, and NOTNEWS can often be countered with WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Besides, sources are not all about a single day's events. Some discuss his prior troubles, his court appearances, how this incident relates to a string of recent troubles involving Secret Service, the dogs and their return to duty, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability - jumping a fence and having a bit of trouble with some police dogs doesnt pass the threshold. Being a fence to a notable place doesnt make the act notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne Recieving significant coverage in independent reliable sources does make the act notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:49, 16 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it's disturbing that so many editors in this kind of debate express their contempt for Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTNEWS). Nwlaw63 (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some guy jumped over the White House fence, was arrested and got a few days of media coverage as a result. The event had no lasting impact, and White House fence jumpers are honestly pretty common. Clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of a better example of ONEEVENT. p b p 04:18, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Iwata[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note that there was a mistake in his name kanji which I have corrected. I also linked the article to the Japanese and Catalan articles. At least for Japanese coverage, I could find articles such as: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. Also note that he has been the subject of multiple national TV reports: [30]. With a smattering of English coverage, such as [31], I think this just passes WP:GNG even if it does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Michitaro (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Michitaro passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:14, 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.