Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 January	11 January >

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. KTC (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Arnone[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:FILMMAKER; appears to be known for creating one or two short films screened at indie film events. Available coverage on these (present in the article on Daniella Alma, see also related AFD above) appears to be from self-published or obscure review sites, and the coverage is primarily about the films rather than the person. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like these were created in conjunction with the release of these films, but they all fail WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 15 January 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The result was keep (wrong venue, withdrawn by nominator). --Jakob (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

User:Youngsnip1212[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:MUSICBIO and is completely unreferenced. ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Withdraw as a mistake, it's a user page not an article. ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Adair[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced, and author removed CSD. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:20, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hochman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO nor WP:NACADEMICS. Tgeairn (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the 2nd nomination of this article. At the time of the first nomination, BIO and notability guidelines were significantly lighter. See in particular the cleanup work by Borock, Drmies, Zambelo, Kitfoxxe, and others. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert any notability. All it says is that he was an expert witness is a few court cases and wrote a few articles in scholarly publications. Borock (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked over the references, and looks like Borock is right. If we set the standard for notability to include this guy, we've have to include all lawyers, physicians, scientists... who have ever been quoted in the lay press. That is setting the bar for notability too low IMO. BakerStMD T|C 22:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage found ABOUT him, just a quote here or there. Nothing found at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 17 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Alma[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. The references appear to be self-published or otherwise user-generated content that provide coverage primarily of the films rather than the actress. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. As mentioned in nomination, references are on one minor short film she was in as opposed to the actress herself. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unfortunately no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 22:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Sourisseau[edit]

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

Average Charlie Hebdo contributor, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, a search yields mainly Facebook, linkedin and similar stuff. Brief mentions due to recent shooting, virtually no RS to compile a meaningful bio. Brandmeister^talk 21:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this man is known as "Riss" and is one of the main cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, he is worthy of inclusion and is known in France ( see his French Wiki ). His illustrations appear often on the cover of Hebdo see [1] HesioneHushabye (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw his, but I doubt that merely being a satirical cartoonist warrants an inclusion. The French Wiki basically only lists his works. Brandmeister^talk 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are missing the point that he was shot in the meeting and one of the main cartoonists of this magazine Charlie Hebdo, and a known cartoonist in France with his own Wiki to chronicle his many 'works', that appear on the cover of the magazine often as I linked above. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he was not notable before he sure is now, but sounds like he was notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability as cartoonist and as terrorism victim. Hektor (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:BASIC even prior to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Sam ^Sing! 18:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close discussion - Obviously notable. Royal Mate1 03:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close discussion, and a stern warning for the editor who proposed the deletion* - Obviously notable as a published author and famous cartoonist, even before he was shot by Islamic terrorists for drawing famous Charlie Hebdo covers like "The Koran is shit, it doesn't stop bullets", and the one of the pig. But now has 22,000 results for "Charlie Hebdo Riss" on Google News, 3,520 for "Laurent Sourisseau", 3,270 for "koran stop bullets". Has 4 million people marching in the street in protest against the attack on him, and world leaders praising (and decrying) him. Carl Kenner (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like others have said, enough sources to show notability, and definitely now after the shooting. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While by no means the gold standard, the fact that the subject is covered by a few of the other languages speaks volumes. Juno (talk) 07:35, 16 January 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. Sandstein 11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of unconfirmed exoplanets[edit]

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

If an exoplanet is unconfirmed, there is no reason it should be given any prominence in Wikipedia. There is no need for a list of unconfirmed objects of a specific type, since many of these (if not most) will turn out to be false detections. While this list is clearly in good-faith, it simply gives undue prominence to something which is not even confirmed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree. How can you state something that doesn't even exist? Also, Kepler has detected >3,000 exoplanets with the existence chance 50% or less. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 01:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree a list is a bit pointless as it is a bit dynamic and just shows the amount of human knowlege at any point in time. However an article on unconfirmed exoplanets may be useful, and can explain why they are unconfirmed. Perhaps a list of notable unconfirmed or disconfirmed planets could go here - if there are any. I can think of the ones around Barnard's Star as an example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with maintenance) - Although I see how such an article appears a bit redundant and contradictory to Wikipedia's goals, some of these planets are probably well-known in the scientific community and are notable. I like some of the ideas proposed in the comment above, and perhaps the list could be shortened and uncluttered a little bit. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify. Nom expresses my exact thoughts on this as a list, but Graeme's suggestion that it would be well suited as a true article that explains the why and how seems like a very good idea. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of today, exoplanets.org lists just over 3300 unconfirmed exoplanets, mainly because of the huge amount of data from the Kepler telescope. It's possible that most will not turn out to be planets. The reason they are unconfirmed is fairly mundane: follow-up observations are needed, either with another method (radial velocity) or to get additional orbits to confirm the Kepler transits. I'm not convinced a separate article is needed to explain this...why not just a section in the exoplanet article or methods of detection article? As for a list, I'm not convinced at all. Are there "notable unconfirmed" exoplanets? Please provide enough to make a list... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Barnard's Star has a section on the false planets (as are a couple of the other Star-related articles I glanced at), and the rest of that list will either be rejected as non-stars or written up as proper articles. Not sure if it would be worth adding anything to the (already substantial) methods of detecting exoplanets article. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not, technically, the creator of this list, as all I did was break it off from a wider article ages ago, so I don't really have any territorial attachment to it. I have hoped for some time that it might be expanded by the Wikipedia exoplanet team, but it hasn't happened. I'm not convinced, however, that simple deletion is the wisest course of action. There are a number of notable stars (such as Barnard's Star, Tau Ceti and Betelgeuse) that have been or are suspected of having planets, many of which were notable "false starts" in exoplanet research. It might be a good idea to list those. Serendi ^pod ous 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep on this one for reasons outlined by Serendipodous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "notable false starts in exoplanet research" is a section of an article that I would probably read. The rest of the unconfirmed? I know I've been writing "needlessly duplicate" several times lately, and this list falls under that. Other websites, notably exoplanets.org, already provide this information with far more utility that this list will ever have. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think an article such as history of exoplanet discoveries (which I think would be a noteworthy topic) could easily have this information, if somebody wishes to create it. No need for this separate indiscriminate list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:23, 10 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, Sandstein 20:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment Just because these planets are unconfirmed exoplanets does not mean that they are inherently non-notable. The list could definitely be cut down to remove some of the more obscure suggestions on the list, and it may not satisfy notability because they are unconfirmed. BenLinus1214^talk 22:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @BenLinus1214:, Nobody is saying that unconfirmed exoplanets are inherently non-notable; for example, Alpha Centauri Bb is quite clearly notable. We're saying that a list is the wrong way to go about describing them, and gives them undue weight, thus violating policy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @StringTheory11:, I see where you're coming from. It does make more sense, as you mentioned above, to possibly create an article on history of exoplanet discoveries, and I definitely think that there is some salvageable content on this page. (Note: I have changed my opinion for now).
Delete. I agree that some of those sites that were mentioned do a better job, adn all the lists have "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" underneath them. However, there is definite potential for a page on notable unconfirmed or disproven exoplanets (as has been said before).Iwilsonp (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As is, the list is terribly incomplete, and if completed, it would be obfuscated by the sheer quantity of information. Creating the page Unconfirmed exoplanets and describing common situations and notable examples may be a better course of action. Piboy51 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 17:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up and Dance (Walk the Moon song)[edit]

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:NSONG. That guideline specifically says that simply being listed in rankings is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; there must be substantial coverage in independent sources. Bringing to AFD because it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (the list of rankings is arguably a claim to notability, even if it's not a good one) and PROD was removed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Notable as charting in the United States in a multiple of genre charts like Adult Alternative Songs, Hot Rock Songs, Alternative Songs as Top 10 as well as the Hot 100 at number 75. Also charting internationally in Sweden and the Netherlands. As for lack of references, I have now included five media references and reviews of the song. Please refer to amendments included on the page. werldwayd (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained above, WP:NSONG (Wikipedia's guideline on what makes songs count as notable or not) specifically says that charting alone is not sufficient to indicate notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Due to the sources recently added to the article, as well as this and this. These should be significant enough. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable song that has charted in different countries. This article only started recently, therefore it is stubbed. Some songs that are not even charted can be featured articles, so why not? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:37, 14 January 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. Sandstein 11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early Israelite Campaigns[edit]

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

Still unreferenced although article was created in 2011 Editor2020, Talk 04:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUST? St Anselm (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the reason that the sources have not been provided, and probably will not be provided, is the archaeological consensus that an Israelite invasion and conquest of Canaan did not happen. Editor2020, Talk 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the vast majority of scholars don't think the conquest per book of Joshua ever happened - see that article for sources. Also this article is poorly defined - what exactly is "early"? Plus of course it has no sources and is in any case extremely thin.PiCo (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PiCo, I added sources, see below or in article. Articles don't need to be about things that actually happened (cc: Editor2020), we have articles on fiction, the question is whether there are reliable secondary sources that address this as a specific topic, right? ProfGray (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing substantive here, and nothing worth saving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's not forget that WP:MUST is just an essay; it does say "it's enough to show that those sources exist". This fails WP:V and it's already discussed at History of ancient Israel and Judah. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Changing to Keep based on the excellent work of ProfGray and Editor2020. It still needs work but it looks far better. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Chris Troutman . I do think the topic can be verified by the sources I've added below. I've looked at the linked article and it doesn't really give this much treatment. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Currently, this article is based on the Biblical narrative alone. Hence, its content could be inserted into (is that a merge?) Israelites#Biblical Israelites, which is a synopsis of that section of the Hebrew Bible. However, this could easily be a Keep because this topic can be based on such sources as:

Albright, William F. "The Israelite conquest of Canaan in the light of archaeology." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1939): 11-23.
Wright, G. Ernest. "Archaeological News and Views: Hazor and the Conquest of Canaan." The Biblical Archaeologist 18.4 (1955): 106-108.
Van Seters, John. "Joshua's campaign of Canaan and near eastern historiography." Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 4.2 (1990): 1-12.
Dever, William G. Who were the early Israelites, and where did they come from?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003.
Hess, Richard S. "The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua." Critical Issues in Early Israelite History (2008): 29-30.
Kennedy, Titus Michael. "The Israelite conquest: history or myth?: an achaeological evaluation of the Israelite conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges." (2011). http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/5727
Levin, Yigal. "3 The wars of Joshua." War and Peace in Jewish Tradition: From the Biblical World to the Present (2012): 37.

In other words, this is a notable topic in the academic study of the Hebrew Bible, so maybe the article can be improved instead of deleted? If you don't mind, I could add the sources and a sentence, but I don't want to write it up at the moment. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits. Okay, I added this lead sentence: "Biblical narratives of an Israelite conquest have long been a subject of religious inquiry and, in the 20th century, a debate over the archaeological evidence and historicity of the putative conquest. " Also added the 6 sources above. Is that sufficient to Keep it?

Btw, in a few weeks I start teaching this Hebrew Bible course , so maybe y'all could persuade my students to improve this or similar Hebrew Bible stubs? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another 13 reliable secondary sources on this topic. See there. Should these be in alpha, chronological, or topical order? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what this course actually is? You've put a lot of work into it, but I'm not sure I'd ever use Wikipedia as the basis for a university course. Anyway, the point of bibliographies on Wikipedia is to allow readers to verify information - so they're the books etc used in the article, not a general reading list. You could possibly get your students to collaborate on a new article on the Conquest narrative - we don't seem to have one at the moment - but "early conquest" is too narrow. Also, be careful of your sources - Albright and Wright, for example, are well out of date. PiCo (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might be right that "early" is unnecessary, but that's a renaming not a deletion question. For sure, Albright and Wright should be used only to report on the shift in scholarly assessments. I just added the sources to show Notability and WP:RS for the article. I don't know which would be refs for the article body and which in a Further Reading section. I'd be glad to start a Talk thread with you about the course. Cheers, ProfGray (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PiCo and Cullen328. This article is nothing but a title, a sentence, and a reading list – which is not an article by Wikipedia standards. The title of the page does not reflect the lead or the purpose of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect into both Book of Joshua#Themes and genre and/or Book of Judges#Themes and genre as that is where this "early conquest" is primarily recorded. There is yet time for better more independent articles such as this as it seems WP is neither ready nor mature enough for a full presentation of the topic that gives Biblical accounts "equal time" with extreme anti-religious hodge-podge bigotry. Keep [article has subsequently been brought up to speed.] WP is not here to "prove" or "disprove" the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and the Tanakh based on vague and purely secular-oriented prejudiced POV theories that reek of WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- This article consists of an introduction; a stub on Ai; and a long bibliography. Te bibliography might be useful if it were supporting something but essentially it has no substantive content. I gather that there is difficulty in relating the Biblical account to archaeology, or at least the accepted archaeological interpretation. Accordingly, there is nothing to use apart from Joshua. I would love to able to support the existence of an article such as this, but the present one cannot be allowed to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More analysis based on sources. In response to Peterkingiron and others (cf. Yoninah) requesting substantive content, I have added a few paragraphs so far using the reliable sources. Let me know what you think, thanks! Diff here [2] thanks ProfGray (talk) 15:08, 9 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, Tawker (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is clearly a topic of academic and religious study, and archaeology and there is a specific plan to expand it.Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as incomplete. The historical (as opposed to historiographic) content of the article is far too brief. Ai was not the whole of the campaign. However the detailed discussion on the historicity of the accounts is well worth having. This is something that cannot conveniently be accommodated in an article on the book of Joshua. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been transformed since it was first brought to AfD. It is a topic of academic and archaeological study and debate, and text and sources now reflect that. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article should be expanded, it's notable and has enough sources from archaeologists and scholars to justify its existence.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 03:40, 18 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Rugby League Competition[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles about a regional sports organization which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this discussion are the following articles

•Delete Neither the League nor the Teams appear notable. Article lack third party references. Even the vast majority of the fields in which these teams play in do not appear notable. --I eat BC Fish (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 1 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Keep) — The Bayside Sharks article says it supplies international players. That meets the WP:RU notability criteria. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:24, 6 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 17:57, 10 January 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) 17:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jat clans of Uttar Pradesh[edit]

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

What is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Jat in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Jat or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Jats." Also bear in mind that the 1891 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. Many similar lists have been deleted in recent months, including this one. Sitush (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (sing) @ 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 1 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOT. Sam ^Sing! 23:22, 6 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 17:55, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Waller[edit]

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

Fails General notability guidelines and likely self promotion. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources are provided to show why he's notable. I also share a concern the page's auther, Evewaller (talk · contribs), is related to the subject. -- Calidum 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a long standing journalist and diarist for one of the most respected newspapers in the UK and who appears in a whole bunch of news and book hits if you use the right search terms. I've added coverage from a couple to give the article a boost. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So he's been doing his job at a decent company for a long time. As a journalist, his name will appear in print against his work. But have there been multiple, authoritative articles written about him? FunkyCanute (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, quite a few, such as the four I added the other day. I mean, the New Statesman source has his name in the title! Calling The Times, one of the most longest established British newspapers (despite Rupert Murdoch trying desparately to bugger things up) "a decent company" shows alarming naivety. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 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 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Barr[edit]

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

IP removed PROD tag without addressing any of the issues. Article has zero third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Aoidh (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interview) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ Article needs better sourcing, but given the number of roles already listed here, this isn't a small set for someone who is still a teenager. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a set that meets WP:NACTOR either. Merely being in a large number of minor roles at a young age is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does your SCARE CAPS actually say? "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." I'd see Shameless, This is England 88 and Hollyoaks as significant productions, and his role within each as adequate individually to make them valid per NACTOR. Of course he's not Meryl Streep, but he's not doing bad for a career so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant role is the part you missed, not merely being in a series of productions. This individual does not have that, especially when it cannot even be verified given the comment below. "Not doing bad" is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and what he's done at his age is only a consideration of sources note this as significant in some way, and that hasn't happened. His age is irrelevant, and the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR in even the most basic sense. Also given that this is a BIO article sourcing is critical; lack of sourcing means there shouldn't be an article at all, given that there isn't a single reliable source even so much as verifying what's in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?

There is a mystery over Ryan Barr´s entries in IMDB - he seems to be in the casts of This is England '88, Top Dog, Hollyoaks and Shameless, but the name of the role he is playing in each of these is blank. In addition it has proved impossible to find out anywhere the names of the roles he plays in these (and other) dramas. There is a concern that there is some hoaxing going on here. Can anyone shed any light on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandekafsh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown as an actor in any of our lists of Hollyoaks characters. He does, though, appear on the end of a long list of fictional characters in the main Hollyoaks article: Noyster (talk), 12:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Helens seem to think that he turned their christmas lights on. OTOH, an aspiring actor ought to be employing better PR to increase his visible presence. I've no objection to delete on the basis that verification is being more awkward than it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 3 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 3 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 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Brosnan (actor)[edit]

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

Brosnan doesn't seem to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Any coverage on him is essentially because of his father. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand where the nominator is coming from, I'd have to say keep. He has acted in a number of movies. Perhaps most, if not all coverage, is because of his father. Regardless, it is coverage from secondary, independent sources. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 11:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 16:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 16:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete significance of coverage matters and this article has not much to stand on. I tried the search tools, too. There are some acting appearances, but arguably not enough to live up to WP:NACTOR. No prejudice against recreation in the future. Hekerui (talk) 14:09, 2 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 3 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 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED + WP:NACTOR - Being a son or daughter of a famous actor doesn't grant you a free pass to an article, Like this BLP there's no evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was linked to this deleted page from a movie article (UFO/Alien Uprising). To be fair, I was curious if he was Pierce Brosnan's son, and sure enough he is. The discussion here is amusing, if not a bit sad, but in the end it seems unfair. Sean has an IMDB page with a detailed bio (albeit the beginning has a weird focus on lineage), plenty of credits, and 4 awards. Google also categorizes him as an actor in their search categories. Perhaps being an actor's kid doesn't make you an actor, but it also shouldn't disqualify you from credits you've earned. Either way, there are Wikipedia articles that mention this person acting in movies with broken links because of a debate over whether he's an actor or not. Feels sus. 2603:8080:700:C160:5D5F:6C57:72FD:1815 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2023 (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. KTC (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaz tabatabae[edit]

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

If he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, I couldn't find it. Persian readers may have access to something I'e missed. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 21:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, Not documented. Deletion is the right choice.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:33, 4 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 17:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't say "not documented": his name does appear in a few Persian sources. However, unless someone who knows Persian can tell if the mentions are anything important, I'll go with delete, since there are no other sources. --Jakob (talk) 23:29, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen G. Alter[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Creator removed notability tag applied by Animalparty. Prod was contested by creator but no reason given in edit summary or talk page. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two books published from Johns Hopkins University Press should be enough for history faculties. His 2005 work is notable as first "full-length study" of Whitney, (the greatest American Sanskritist of 19th century). His other work which concerns Darwin has got ~~five~~seven reviews (now added to the article) in JSTOR, sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR. Solomon 7968 14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also the nominator keeps on putting back the notability tag even after the article is up here (see page history). If the article is kept the admin/non-admin closing this should perhaps remove the tag. Solomon 7968 17:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Solomon7968, you can just tag someone like I have tagged you here, I find that very useful. I explained my reasons for retaining the notability tag until a consensus is reached in my edit summary. At the moment, its notability is in question so it should remain there, plus it makes it more likely for a member of the Notability team to spot it and work on it. No advantages to taking it off before any consensus has been reached. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you want. If the Afd closes as no consensus, then also the tag should not be there as there is no consensus whether he is notable or not. And I don't believe articles get improved by members of the "Notability team". Solomon 7968 06:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite clear with what I want - notability tag left on until consensus is reached. Boleyn (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- While I know little of the subject, these sound like significant works in the history of linguistics. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 13:03, 3 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 17:46, 10 January 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. Sandstein 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Quinn[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO; group scene awards don't count, and all others are nominations. refimprov tag has sat for seven years. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AVN Award winner. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; I have rewritten the article and added several reliable sources. There is mainstream media coverage of the subject over a twenty-year span. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - She fails WP:PORNBIO which states "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration" - All awards that I can see are scene related so meh Delete. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No serious argument that the subject passes PORNBIO. Aside from minimal coverage when her underage status was found out, the other "coverage" is really no more than passing mentions in listings like "other underage pornstars included ..." This puts us in BLP1E territory, and I don't see either that event or the very limited subsequent coverage as sufficient to sustain a BLP here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - On my god ... Me and You agree on something for once - It may snow tomorrow now . –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HW, is this what you're referring to? Because that isn't a "passing mention" for Quinn. That argument would be true in reference to Kristara Barrington, Ali Moore and Nikki Charm in that same article, but not Quinn. And just because the article isn't entirely about her doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, which states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". And WP:BLP1E states "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E)". Media coverage of Quinn is persistent, it began in 1991 and as recently as 2011-2013, articles about her have continued to be published. BLP1E also states that it "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals" and Quinn is not a low-profile individual because she returned to the porn industry afterward. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog source in a BLP; it does nothing but regurgitate cursory details from long ago without updating anything; and the only information it provides beond the 1E is that subject has breast implants. That's not significant coverage or persistent coverage. And arguing that BLP1E doesn't apply to someone who left then returned to being a sex worker has neither logic nor policy support behind it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. According to WP:NEWSBLOG, it's an acceptable source. 2. Again, WP:GNG does not require her to be the main topic of the source material. 3. She actually is the main topic of all the other mainstream sources in the article. 4. How can you think that coverage of her 22 years later is not persistent? 5. According to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile". Aside from her interviews on Hard Copy and The Howard Stern Show [3], no one who wants to be low-profile performs in pornographic films. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes the general notability guidelines and not as BLP1E. She was featured in the book about the murder of Christopher Walsh, Nobody Walks, as the girlfriend of one of the murderer. A chapter is also devoted to her devirginising some fan as part of a publicity stunt in in Embedded. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 4 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 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the kind of media coverage that justifies inclusion. Several sweeps of news sources did not yield much that suggests AQ meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources on Alexandra Quinn can be found on newslibrary.com. They're easier to find if you search for "Diane Purdie Stewart" (her real name) or "Alexandria Quinn" (with an "i") instead of "Alexandra Quinn". There's also a The Commercial Appeal article on Quinn which you can find by searching for "Diane Colazzo". That article was published on October 30, 1993 and is unrelated to her underage scandal. Morbidthoughts also provided several sources on Quinn above, which are also unrelated to the underage scandal. Quinn passes GNG and is not a BLP1E. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea to provide links, also hone the current article to remove the dubious sources, if these things are done I'll reevaluate my choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:GNG through industry coverage for her multiple award nominations. Mainstream media is nice, but is not a policy nor a guideline. It is reasonable that someone in the adult industry would be covered by adult industry media. PORNBIO is a supplement to the GNG and does not supersede it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}
Comment. An obvious attempt to evade the "overwhelming" RFC consensus that those porn award nominations do not count toward establishing notability. In addition, notability policy/guidelines require reliable, independent sourcing to establish notability, and press releases and self-sourced databases are not accepted as establishing notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:47, 11 January 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. Whether and where to redirect it to is a decision best taken editorially by subject-matter experts, I'm not sure that we have a consensus here for that. Sandstein 11:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arcanum corallinum[edit]

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

The entry itself contains gibberish and no discernable chemical would be so produced. It's been an orphan since orphan detection (2009). The only reference is now a dead link. I do not object to "alchemy/alternative medicine" pages, but this page doesn't actually contain any information at all about whether the substance named exists. Riventree (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alchemy.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge or Significantly Expand~~ ~~Expand and Link~~ Keep The New Encyclopedia; or, Universal dictionary ofarts and sciences [sic]. Pharmacopceia Bateana, click the hypertext to go to page 306. It appears, through some further research, that this is a very antiquated description of how to produce Mercury(II) oxide.^[1] I would personally expand the article to include the older references (and not just cut and paste them which is what our current article consists of), then cross link between the two articles. WookieeV (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ The New Werner Twentieth Century Edition (Volume 25 ed.). p. 222. Retrieved 3 January 2015.

In fact, it appears that Mercury(II) oxide already gives a nod to the alchemical origins of the compound by listing Maslama al-Majriti in the History heading. A quick glance over Maslama's page shows that he describes a process almost identical to the more recent sourcing we have found. I am going to clean up and expand the Arcanum corallinum page, then link it to both Mercury(II) oxide and Maslama al-Majriti as a "see also:" in the History/Pseudo-Majriti sections respectively unless I hear an objection. Regardless, this needs to be removed from deletion debate since there is clearly significance. WookieeV (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been fully updated and de-orphaned. Basis for original AfD is now a nullity and should be retracted. WookieeV (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The miniscule amount of actual content in this page can be put into a sentence or two on Mercuric Oxide, including the "Alternate name" on the data page. That would obviate the usefulness of this page completely.

Riventree (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This compound is distinctly different than Mercuric Oxide, as explained in the article. Arcanum corallinum is an archaic medical treatment addressed, at length, in numerous medical/alchemical encyclopedias. Mercuric Oxide is incredibly toxic and only the first stage of producing Arcanum Corallinum. Including it in Mercuric Oxide would be incorrect and, in fact, grossly misleading. Even if we ignored the fact that the article meets WP:N, has been de-orphaned, cited, expanded, and is at least qualified as a alternative medicine stub, your interest in merging or redirecting this page negates the original nomination for deletion. Please see (WP:BEFORE). Usefulness, or the lack thereof (which has not been demonstrated), is not an absolute criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. Students of medieval/pre-modern medicine, alternative medicine, alchemical historians, etc could/would find a great deal of merit and information in this page. Personal bias against alternative medicine is hardly a reason for deleting a page which meets wikipedia's article requirements. WookieeV (talk) 18:45, 7 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 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. The "dressup" that's been done on the page includes two references that are just word lookups in wiktionary - apparently to get the "refs" count up, since they should be links, not references. Further, someone's marked it "B" quality, apparently also in defense of the page, because it doesn't meet the requirements for that either, even in the alternative medicine definitions. Lastly it's hard to determine if the lately added contributions are WP:SOCK material or not. Delete.

Riventree (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNumber of references are immaterial to whether or not to delete a wikipedia page... All of nominator's arguments speak to the quality of the page, not to whether or not it should be kept. If one feels strongly they should be links and not references on the latin text, go ahead and change it to improve the article quality. That does nothing to change the fact that the page should be kept. Even a downgrade to stub status (also well within an editor's purview) would not negate the validity of the inclusion of the page; I think there is some confusion about what AfD is for, on the nominator's part. If we were to delete every page that was short on references and a stub, there would be far, far fewer Wikipedia pages. There are other forums and methods for addressing every argument raised- this debate has yet to see a valid argument for deletion. WookieeV (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide and add a section "use in traditional medicine." The level of instruction in this article is non-encyclopedic as Wikipedia is not a medical textbook. However, it seems worth incorporating a small part of this history in our description of the chemical compound. Piboy51 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally agreed with that concept, Piboy51, but through expanding the article I realized that that would be extremely misleading. Only the first half of the process to make this apparent compound results in [Mercury(II) oxide]. The mercuric oxide (which is incredibly toxic at that stage) is then further refined into an entirely different end product. It is not an archaic description of creating mercuric oxide. WookieeV (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide It isn't clear to me how it is different from mercuric oxide. It sounds like it is mercuric oxide that is distilled with water and vinegar. It would still be mercuric oxide after that. BakerStMD T|C 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I may be seriously missing something and should defer to the physician here, but I'm not sure how tartarized ETOH is water and vinegar... I was under the impression that the secondary process deoxidized the mercuric oxide, thus rendering it 'safe', quotes used solely because I have no idea what this compound would actually do to a person now, but it seems unlikely it would rapidly poison you and destroy nephrotic function if it was so widely considered a treatment for medicinal use in pre-modern medicine. It is my understanding that straight out mercuric oxide is exceptionally toxic and is used in making batteries; I am drawing this understanding directly from the page people are voting we redirect an alternative medicine stub to... WookieeV (talk) 20:29, 17 January 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, per WP:SNOW. —Lowellian (reply) 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Porte de Vincennes siege[edit]

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

This should be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, and was until the creation of this fork. It is not a separate incident, but part of that chain of that chain of events. It must be deleted. I also don't understand the use of the word "siege", which doesn't seem to be based in reality. RGloucester — ☎ 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough notability for separate article. Merging to main article violates WP:SIZE. Rename to Porte de Vincennes hostage crisis. 178.94.120.204 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. The main article is not too large for the guideline, and is in fact modest in size. RGloucester — ☎ 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep More than sufficient individual notablity. If kept, naming issues aren't for this page to decide. --Dweller (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Dweller. Plenty of more details to add to the page as well. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously notable and a different event to CH; frankly, nominator's wasting people's time with this and the Je suis one. Ericoides (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for keeping this article. It must be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 18:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of antisemitic violence in Europe separate from the initial shootings at Charlie Hebdo --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously notable, separate, historical event. Part of French history. Strong keep and expand.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its is a distinct event:
* * 1. executed by a different set of terrorists
* * 2. with a different motive
* * * 2.a Charlie Hebdo was for free speech the terrorists did not agree with
* * * 2.b Hypercacher attack was anti-semite event, as self-declared by the terrorist and by the President of France too
* * 3. with a different set of victims
* * * 3.a Charlie Hebdo was against employees of Charlie Hebdo or whoever got in the way
* * * 3.b Hyperchacher attack was deliberately against Jews and all killed are Jews
XavierItzm (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event is distinct enough to warrant separate coverage for now. Issue may be revisited in future if this should change. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will most likely always be relevant and there is a good chance further coverage will come when things calm down, this is a historically significant event --81.129.124.67 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per every other statement made here. My only issue is that it needs some more information. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, but even with some clean-up and a bit more accurate details, it's still going to stay as a fairly small article. Perhaps merging the Amedy Coulibaly article in with it can give it some more substance? I'm not sure. Someone else can deal with it if it's indeed as important of an article as this discussion says it is. Zup326 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep seriously? Let's get rid of the delete tag already Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Merge I agree with RGloucester that extra articles are probably not needed for each subsequent event that occurred after the main Charlie Hebdo shooting. My reasoning is that I don't believe many people are going to remember the sieges as stand-alone issues, but rather they will be remembered as a continuation and the conclusion to the Charlie Hebdo saga. Sort of like the term "Kleenex" is now used to describe all tissue, even the ones that aren't official Kleenex brand. The term "Charlie Hebdo" has taken on a similar meaning with regard to these attacks. But at the same time it's also not plausible to delete the new articles merely for the sake of having too many articles. This deletion debate will swiftly end in favor of keep. Zup326 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that some would see it as a significant event in its own right for reasons that should be fairly clear --81.129.124.67 (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although related to the earlier murders, it is an independently notable event. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate event. --Klemen Kocjancic (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is distinct enough to have a separate article. The Charlie Hebdo shooting article does not cover it adequately. --Article editor (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as Keep but upon thinking about it as well as the !votes here I think it's best I reopen given the nature of it all, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I vehemently disagree with nominator that this event needs to remain in the Charlie Hedbo shooting article. In fact, it should be barely mentioned within that article, given the size constraints and the fact that it was not the same perps. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned above. I agree that the word "siege" in the title is misplaced, but that is definitely not grounds for deletion. It is definitely a notable event. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously notable LectriceDuSoir (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Very notable.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a distinct event separate the many other events in the chain that occured in those ~48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.189.141 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable event--Arbutus the tree (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is indicated by sources. Also an admonishment to the nominator for starting ridiculous, time-wasting AFDs. Everyking (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should we remove the deletion tag?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can User:RGloucester see consensus here and remove the tag? -- Aronzak (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep part of global international coverage of Charlie Hebdo shooting, admin should be ashamed for such a ridiculous AFD -- Aronzak (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you wanted this to be part of Charlie Hebdo shooting, why wouldn't you at least keep it as a redirect? A bold merge would have been possible without any discussion per WP:BRD, and regardless of your stance (although from the looks of it, it likely would have been reverted), there should at least be a redirect to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Dustin (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, he tried a bold merge which was indeed swiftly reverted. Had this discussion miraculously gone his way then in all likelihood he'd have made redirections as well. If not then someone else could have easily made them. The name of the article at the time was not even certain. AfD was pretty much his only shot at pulling off the merge anyway. A very slim chance nonetheless which is now all but finished. Zup326 (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Erm. SNOWBALL. C'est tout. --Dweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources clearly establish notability. Clearly an independent event to Charlie Hebdo. Spiderone 08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Although clearly connected to the perpetrators of the CH attack, Coulibaly's actions and clearly significant enough to merit their own page. If all he had done was shoot the police officer and then been quickly apprehended or neutralised, the content could easily be incorporated with the CH attack page, but the supermarket attack is far too notable in its own right not to have its own page. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another bad-faith nom from RGloucester (see Je suis Charlie). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distinctly separate from the main incident, this article justifies itself through size and notability. doktorb _words^deeds 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable in itself and is part of a larger trend of violence in the world. Trackteur (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notability for separate article. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 12:22, 11 January 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 01:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Lewson[edit]

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

This is a non-notable woman. Someone who may have served as a model for a single character and may have been over 110 years old is not notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article, but unsure on notability yet. She was covered in a significant number of sources at the time, and I found at least 4 reprintings of her obituary in major publications of her, in addition to coverage in many other books. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 05:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Thomas Seccombe article in the 1893 Dictionary of National Biography and the Walter Scott journal entry are probably sufficient for notability, to which can be added the more hypothetical Dickens link. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 3 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 17:19, 10 January 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. Sandstein 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted kidnappings by Israel Defense Forces[edit]

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

One incident is hardly basis for an article. Not to mention that the incident, which lasted a few hours, was described as an interrogation by Israeli media. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a side-note, if this discussion will lead to significant improvement of the article, in such a way that it will not be deleted, then I will also be content. But as it is now, this article is a farce, and a politically inflammable one at that. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 10 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 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added it. Perhaps check your instructions, because if a 7-year editor can't get it right, perhaps there is something wrong with the instructions. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One single incident does not justify an entire article about "kidnappings".--Ashurbanippal (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A second incident (or series of incidents) was added today, by the original editor of this article. I improved the sourcing a little, but added a {{Better source}} tag with the following reason: The source has a strong POV. In addition, even this source admits most were released after interrogation. Now, since when is bringing people in for interrogation called "kidnapping"? In addition, the source has a disclaimer, which suggests the materials are not reviewed by any editorial board, in which case they fail WP:RS. In simple words, the article did not become and better because of today's addition. rather to the contrary, I'd say. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sisi may or may not be a notable incident in its own right, but he has an article already. Zahra's case doesn't seem to be notable at all, and no sources have connected them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 January 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 Indian English. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivated Indian English[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable at all. Only source I saw noting it was an opinion site, plus the article doesn't establish anything that would make me consider this significant. Wizardman 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is currently no indication of notability and I could not find any reliable sources on the subject itself. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian English. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Indian English -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:35, 6 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 17:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to Indian English. But it looks like OR to me. It exists at Indian English because the same author recently put it there. He has added the same vowel table to Indian English and Received Pronunciation, but it was deleted from Received Pronunciation as dubiously sourced. I added a couple of {{cn}} tags to Indian English, as this tripartite division of Cultivated/Standard/Regional might be OR and needs to be checked. See Talk:Received Pronunciation#New table. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 17:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statohm[edit]

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

14 word article. I tried to redirect it and merge but that was reverted. Putting to more formal process to have merged. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, as inappropriate venue. I don't believe that the nominator actually wishes the page gone, rather just wants to challenge the merge revert. Opening a discussion on the talk page would be more appropriate. I reverted it because it was merged to an entirely inappropriate place, the ohm article is part of a completely different set of units and will only add confusion there. While I am not absolutely against some kind of merge, the topic is probably defensible as a standalone page on the grounds that it is capable of expansion. Most material on this unit and its history is likely to be in 1960s texts when the system was actually in use. Unfortunately gbooks is quite poor at providing preview from this era so building an article from online sources would be difficult. Nevertheless, there is some material available, there is some discussion in this book for instance. These are also the units used by James Clerk Maxwell, a central figure (the central figure) in the development of electromagnetism. There is some discussion of these units as they relate to Maxwell in this book. At the very least, the article could be expanded along the lines of the statmho article, a sister article similarly reverted. SpinningSpark 17:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". We have articles about the statcoulomb and the statvolt so why wouldn't we have this unit too? If it seems short currently then that just means it's a stub in need of expansion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated for delete on the basis that dozens of these new short articles on obsoleted units are out there and there is an effort to ID and combine them into reasonably useful articles. Make it something useful if it is important to you. 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no compunction on anybody to work on anything, and as Andrew pointed out to you, failure to work on a stub is not grounds for its deletion. SpinningSpark 19:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep in the current much-improved state after Andrew D's work. The situation is that a single editor with apparently poor English language skills, no particular demonstrated expertise in the subject matter,and blind faith in a source other editors have doubts about, is creating an unstoppable stream of articles on units - first one by one, now country by country- which are full of problems. and of doubtful nett value to the encyclopaedia without a similar rescue operation. 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep After the recent work done, this looks like a fine stub. the statohm is a electromagnetism unit of historical significance and is verifiable in reliable sources, some of which are used in the article. There is no policy-based reason for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I do not think that deleting this article now would be a step forward, but I can't see it as better than a step sideways. The trouble is that this does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it merits inclusion in an article which explains the esu system so that at least someone like me can understand it. I cannot see that it is efficient to struggle to improve this article, or any of the other disconnected articles on esu units, before trying to write a proper article on esu itself. I get very quickly lost in this stuff, because it is genuinely hard; the article on Gaussian units is trying to explain things, and not quite making it. (The original stub really was so vacuous that deleting it would have benefitted humanity, at least by saving the time wasted on unproductive discussion.) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry, I missed electrostatic units, and have updated the link. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:49, 13 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Flatt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully professional league and he doesn't have any senior international caps. IJA (talk) 12:35, 13 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Andhera Roshni[edit]

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

No evidence of notability whatsoever. I can verify that it exists, just about, but that's about it. A claim about an actress winning some award failed verification terribly, so I removed it. PROD removed with no reason given, and I can't see how this passes GNG. Also, TV articles generally aren't this empty if they're of notable subjects; not the best argument policy-wise, but it adds to the feeling of non-notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 21:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 15:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. The one reference given appears to be a clip or some other view from it. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 10 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren O'Neil[edit]

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

There is an assertion of notability, but the fact that the National Theatre is one of two sources used is problematic as she has appeared in two of their productions. With the other source being "Spotlight.com", I do not believe WP:V is being properly satisfied. James ^{(T • C)} • 10:23 AM • 23:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 14:59, 10 January 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. This has already had over 2 weeks here and in the absence of any (current) opinions in favour of keeping I am closing as Delete. Michig (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aline Cumming[edit]

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

Not notable. The claim she was Executive Officer of the CPHC is unsourced and seems dubious - the CPHC doesn't have any executive officers, just a committee according to its web site. It could be her role predates them being run by committee but it's unclear as dates aren't given, their web site doesn't mention her and it's unsourced. No indication why she was made a honorary fellow, just an entry in a list. And only one of fifteen co-editors of an update to an existing glossary. I.e. falls short of WP:NACADEMICS and WP:NAUTHOR. Searches turns up nothing better. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Keep Delete Keep~~ – This cite shows that she was Executive Officer in 2002. I added it and edited the article to make clear that she is one of 15 co-editors. That doesn't quite qualify under WP:NACADEMICS #C8, which wants a "head or chief editor". So that leaves #C6, for Executive Officer, which would depend on whether the CPHC is a "major academic institution or major academic society". I don't know, but the earlier cite as of 2002 said that "There are 106 departments in the UK that are eligible to join CPHC, and 103 of them belong." so maybe it qualifies. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Closer inspection reveals that "In 1995 it was decided to employ an Administration Assistant, whose role developed into that of Executive Officer and who also provides support for the Treasurer." So it looks like this post was not the Chair, but the person who runs the office. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found that when looking for sources, about the only thing with her name it on the web site if I recall. It was written by her so not reliable secondary source. The biographical information consists of one short sentence, so hardly in depth.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is another version of the article, as published in the newsletter of the Computing Research Association. Which is a North American organization, so it was "one of an occasional series of articles describing computing research in other countries." Still, they were affiliated organizations and she was invited to contribute. Unless there was no editorial control over that newsletter I think we can assume that she was who it says she was. That said, it looks like the position itself is not the kind envisioned by #C6, so I am changing my !vote to delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On third thought, I am changing my !vote again. Sorry, this is a borderline case and I'm trying to be fair here. I've added one more cite which I think gives a better idea of what she's done in her career. It's not strictly academic, so I'm abandoning the NPROF criteria and going with the fact she was influential in setting IT education and training policies at two important organizations in the UK. We don't have criteria for that, so it's a judgment call. At the CPHC she may not have been the head of the organization, but she was a key person in actually running it, as indicated by the way they upgraded her title. At the BCS she was in charge of education and career training programs, a key part of its mission. About her role as editor of the glossary, it's not the kind of content that would be contributed by a computer scientist, so she may well have had a major hand in writing and/or editing the book. And presumably she was made an Honorary Fellow for her contributions to education. Of course there's no ironclad proof for either of those things. But I do think that in assessing notability we should make our best effort to be fair and guard against underestimating as well as overestimating, and it just seems like the most reasonable interpretation to me. So. We don't have criteria for IT educators, but if we did I think she would pass. If someone objects that we don't have those criteria and therefore she fails, I won't argue against that. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources still fall far short of what\s needed for WP:GNG. There are two things written by her, so not reliable secondary sources, not biographical except they have brief biographical information, so not significant coverage. The other references have even less information about her. I don't doubt that she has been involved in the BCS as noted in the second of the two articles she wrote. But that she's been involved in the BCS for a decade or more but no-one has written about her, except that brief biographical information, suggests she is not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. As I said above, it's accepted practice that we can use an organization's statements about itself as a source for non-controversial facts, such as who its officers are. The second biographical note was by BCS, not the author, so that applies. About GNG, sure. But for various occupations we have carve-outs from GNG that specify exceptions. If a rugby player plays in a professional league or an academic edits a journal, he gets an article automatically. That's regardless of GNG or any type of coverage. It's actually quite rare for a journal editor to be written up, qua editor, by a secondary source. Doesn't matter, he still gets the article on that basis alone. But we have large gaps in these carve-outs. For example, no explicit criteria for public servants. I'm saying that to be fair to individuals in those occupations we could give them equal treatment and consider whether they have been notable in their profession. But if someone says "no criteria, no article" then that's OK, I'm not going to press it. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really carve outs or exceptions. Guidelines such as WP:PROF, WP:ATH, describe additional evidence that can be used for notability, in fields where it can be hard to find general secondary sources (as mainstream media is less interested in academics and sportspeople, than politicians and movie stars say). If that evidence doesn't exist then WP:GNG still applies, as it does to fields without special guidelines such as civil servants. As for being fair the fairest thing especially for living people is to only create articles based on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise the danger is the article will be inaccurate and unrepresentative, missing out on their major achievements and milestones.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. Once the professor gets his article despite a complete lack of GNG, there is still a lot to write about in the form of reactions to his books and articles. But not in this case. As it stands, the article is rewritten, resourced and verifiable. To me it doesn't look out of place on Wikipedia. But it still doesn't give much sense of what she did. We've done our best. If the material isn't there it's not our fault. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A sweep of British news media did not reveal anything. Neither did a sweep of computer related news or education related sources, suggesting this subject does not meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:34, 12 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Aggression[edit]

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

Original research/original synthesis. Essay sourced to three dictionary definitions ("scientific method", "philosophy", and "metaphysics", respectively). Looking around on Scholar etc I can find some people defining their own "law of aggression", but none of them seem very notable. Or is the one discussed here. Kolbasz (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (confer) @ 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dictionary definitions cannot give notability - otherwise we'd have an article for every word in the OED. Looks like OR or essay. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear verifiable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete large amount of material that is not cohesive and fails to be verifiable. There is an assertion that this is a "scientific law" but doesn't appear to be based on repeatable experiments and I can't see anything published anywhere reputable along these lines. The dictionary references don't relate to the subject of this article. This article seems to have been mainly put together by one editor who relys on a single source to substantiate their claims- a book by a non-notable author. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:04, 17 January 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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia[edit]

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

Let's try this again. Last Afd had some socks involved and also I didn't find the arguments compelling. Just because it has been cited multiple times in Google books doesn't mean it could be notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (remark) @ 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, this article has pretty much zero WP:RS, and thus fails WP:N.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage. Unreferenced (except for website) for 10 years. The corporation is real, per state of California records, but that's all I could find about it. It appears to be a tiny operation run out of somebody's home (per Mapquest search). Their stated mission is to produce 300 monographs; in their 20 years of existence they have produced 31. No wonder they haven't been given any coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 17 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annalakshmi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this chain of restaurants meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 14:52, 10 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 20:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Extreme Sport Challenges Association[edit]

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

Exactly no independent reliable sources found. Article does not meet the general notability guidelines. ceradon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 16:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gas) @ 16:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) @ 14:52, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby Alberta[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles about a regional sports organization which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also included in this discussion are the following articles;

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of rugby union-related deletion discussions. - MacRùsgail (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is one of the provincial rugby union organisations in Canada, which fall immediately below the national one, Rugby Canada. Therefore it is one of the most notable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC) p.s. Note that nominator did not list this nomination on rugby union pages.[reply]

Can you provide a policy based argument that does not sound like WP:INHERITED?- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken you up on this "inherited" business on one of the other deletion discussions on Canadian rugby. I do not see the relevance here, and would appreciate the minimal use of jargon here please.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Divided opinion —

Oppose — I would prefer to keep the Rugby Alberta article. It is a regional governing body. Articles regarding regional governing bodies are common across rugby articles, several of which are better developed. See, for example, Southern California Rugby Football Union. The main problem seems to be that this article is a stub, which is a fixable problem.

The WP:RU Notability Guideline is silent on the subject. That guideline sets forth notability guidelines for biographies and for clubs, but not for governing bodies. If you want, you can start a discussion on the WP:RU talk page suggesting notability guidelines for governing bodies.

Support — I agree with deleting the other five articles. The Edmonton and Calgary articles don't seem notable, given their limited geographic scope, and the fact that they are merely sub-organizations within Rugby Alberta. The three club articles don't meet the criteria for clubs described in the WP:RU Notability Guideline, and I support deleting them. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) @ 14:52, 10 January 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. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mas canija que ninguna[edit]

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

Speculative information, the telenovela has not yet been fully confirmed, the cast has not been confirmed, are just rumors. I think it would be best to wait until the soap has at least release date. For now nothing is confirmed, "the producers themselves have said they are doing tests with respect to the cast". McVeigh / talk 15:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (indicate) @ 16:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 16:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (banter) @ 14:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references, speculation in article. WP:TOOSOON. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:24, 12 January 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 18:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amores de barrio[edit]

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

Speculative information, the telenovela has not yet been fully confirmed, the cast has not been confirmed, are just rumors. I think it would be best to wait until the soap has at least release date. For now nothing is confirmed, "the producers themselves have said they are doing tests with respect to the cast". McVeigh / talk 15:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 16:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 14:51, 10 January 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 #1

Mama Cass (restaurant)[edit]

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

After a thorough review of this article, I can't find the significant coverages to reliable sources that establish the subject notability.No evidence of passing WP:CORP either. All I can see is an evidence that the restaurant exist but not an evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The restaurant is just like any common restaurant in every district. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:IMPACT This restaurant chain is notable for its food services in Nigeria. The nominator has no basis for deletion.Eruditescholar (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe notability in this case needs to be based on the region/counties where it is located and the available media there. If this was a small chain in the US with the same number/quality of sources, then notability might be more arguable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! Please can you point out the significant coverages in reliable sources that established the subject notability? If you can do this, then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. The notability of a subject is more than a passing mention of the subject. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since you asked nicely: [4] an in depth analysis by a Major Nigerian Newspaper (by Wikipedia definition). Proof that it is multinational: [5]. Travel guide recommendations by USA Today: [6], [7]. More in depth analysis by a major contributor: [8] (already used as a cite). An in the news item: [9] where it is unfortunate (to be expected given the country) that the actual publisher appears to have lost the entire article. A celebrity (by Nigerian standards) scandal article: [10]. I'm sure we could debate this endlessly, but once again this is Nigeria media/web we are talking about: Top 5 fast food options in Nigeria. In a guide to west Africa (a huge area with numerous countries), Mama Cass is set apart for its "Nigerian-oriented staple fare": [11]. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: as speedy keep #1 per significant coverages to reliable sources pointed out by VMS Mosaic . However, it doesn't matter who closes this AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:35, 13 January 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. Redirecting is preferable to deletion if possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoe railway station[edit]

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

This is one of a number of loose proposals for community stations along the Mid-Norfolk Railway. There is now no plan to build this station, although future options may arise. Until and unless there is an actual plan to build this station it remains totally speculative. It could be recreated should the plan be revived - but as stands there is not even enough factual basis for forking content to parent page. DiverScout (talk) 14:27, 10 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 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Surprisingly I can't find any sources at all to even verify its existence, so will have to say Delete but wouldn't mind it being recreated once something concrete crops up. –Davey2010^Talk 20:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mid Norfolk Railway - there's definitely been mention of this is the heritage rail press. Can be turned into an article if/when building starts. Mjroots (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect cold make sense - although there is no verifiable content to fork, so there would be nothing to add to the MNR page. There is a single sentence mention on the North Elmham railway station page which would be a better redirect, I think, if that was chosen as the way to go. DiverScout (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to most suitable target, probably the rail line for which this station is a proposed addition. --do ncr am 00:54, 17 January 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. czar ⨹ 23:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Harris[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no top tier fights he certainly doesn't meet WP:NMMA. All of the coverage is simply routine sports reporting of his MMA career, so there's nothing to support notability via WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Has no top tier fights and no significant coverage so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A9; musical recording with no artist article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give Me Your Telephone Number[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, doesn't contain any valid references. The band's page was also deleted. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tagged it for speedy A9. Peridon (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed that criteria, I was sure there was some speedy deletion criteria suitable for this. Thanks! George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article content is mostly nonsense, full of pure vandalism. WP:CSD#G3. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophon and the Beasts[edit]

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

possible autobiography, see username of page creator Kges1901 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No sources according to Google and so it is not only a suspected autobiography but a blatant Hoax. Snowager (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this- the group is legitimate and can be heard on sound cloud. All info posted is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corey nelson6969 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The absence of any non-Wikipedia mentions on Google also leads me to suspect it's a hoax. --VeryCrocker (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism and attack page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:32, 10 January 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. czar ⨹ 23:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dugmaia[edit]

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

No existence. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:58, 10 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 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find much information about this. If it indeed exists, it certainly isn't notable. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything but Wikipedia mirrors and scannos on Google. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Yes, made-up. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:52, 11 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinvi[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Random86 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –- Fails notability... not enough albums released before disbanding. Monni (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In 2012, ~ten years after they disappeared, they received coverage in reliable sources, Donga Ilbo and Chosun Ilbo. Looks like it was reports of discovering the one member had passed the bar exam. It's hard to find sources from 2002, so hard to know how notable they may have been then, but the 10-years-later attention in major media makes me wonder. No strong opinion either way, but maybe some more searching can be done before deleting? Shinyang-i (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sang-eun is "almost" notable as solo singer, she has several singles released, but no full album yet. Time will tell, I guess... Monni (talk) 11:04, 9 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recognize the issue with sources, but it seems to me that's more an indication that it's hard for mostly English-language speakers to find Korean sources more than a decade after the group has broken up. The fact that it was worth noting in the media that one of the members now has a new career as a lawyer says to me that the group is notable. The is a link that was formerly to Billboard Korea; but it's dead now; the main page www.billboardk.com now has a note in Korean saying that the entire site is now discontinued. I personally remember their music, it kind of surprises me that they've faded to obscurity, but notability is not temporary. It might make sense to post on the talk page for ko:신비_(음악_그룹) and ask for input and sources. TJRC (talk) 04:06, 16 January 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 Coast Salish peoples. Michig (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Salish defensive sites[edit]

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

This page has been tagged since its creation with cleanup, COI and notability tags. It is about one location only, and an obscure one at that, which is the subject of someone's graduate thesis. The term "Coast Salish defensive sites" could mean nearly anywhere, and would include notable villages such as Kwantlen/MacMillan Island, Homulchesan, Musqueam, any one of several locations on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, and Fort Semiahmoo also. I gave some thought to expanding t his article, but it's very much a one-aspect only thesis and adding material to it on those other places would be redundant; the concept is welcome, but not an article about one obscure site alone. Skookum1 (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (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/2014 December 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no reason I can think of for a separate article for this subject - it can surely be captured by a paragraph in the main Coast Salish peoples article. PK T(alk) 14:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete into Coast Salish Peoples or a similar article. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~For preference merge (which leaves a redirect).~~ I may not fit easily into the article, but it should be possible to find a way of doing it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged and Redirected -- Please close: -- This AFD gas been open quite long enough. I has one vote to delete and two more to merge or redirect. I have therefore undertaken a merge into Coast Salish Peoples. As I do not know the subject, the results of this may be imperfect, but those who know and have not contributed here are welcome to improve that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 17 January 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. A lack of agreement among editors and a lack of policy and/or guideline-based arguments for any specific outcome only leaves this option. Michig (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Computer Application[edit]

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

May need a major rewrite as the article may not be following Wikipedia standards. This article contains Original Research like "And some students use to do jobs in IT World as a programmer, .... best distance education". The rest of the article appears to be the syllabus of some college.Thought of going for a speedy delete but couldn't decide the criterion. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) @ 20:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Poor quality of the article is not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and, if possible, the article should be improved. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I do agree with you on this regard that this is a notable article. So i did not tag this with notability. But this article has ONLY original research.1. The first line describes it and is fine. 2. The course aims at realizing the following student objectives: .... Well this appears to be directly copy pasted from a syllabus and might also be ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 3. After completion of this course, students use to go for higher studies, such as:..... Well how can this be referenced?? Another case of Original research and conclusions. 4. And some students use to do jobs in IT World as a programmer .... Same as point 3. There is no way it can be referenced. Again Original research and conclusions. 5. Eligibility : ..... Again its vague. 6. Bachelor of Computer Application – Course Subjects .... Well you have the syllabus of some college now. Well again case of unverifiable Original Research. 7. References provided = 0 although article was created in 2008.(This will not be the criterion for deletion).

So I don't think its a poor article. Its a completely botched up article which needs a COMPLETE RE-WRITE. So i tagged this article as a case of WP:OR.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move from advice to nominating editor User:Lakun.patra to a formal warning with possibility of a block. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page.Lakun.patra (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is in a very poor condition. a) I was thinking to CSD the article for copyvio. The "aims" seem be be copied from here, syllabus section looks like a direct copy-paste too. I agreed with others that poor quality of the article is not a reason to delete, the copyvio is a reason to do so. I have checked article's old versions. We may need to rev-del many version and edits. So, I suggest to WP:TNT and restart it with the first line "Bachelor of Computer Applications is a 3 years under-graduate degree course. . ." --Tito☸Dutta 03:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into new article List of master's degrees in India (thereby mirroring the North America article); existing article is merely a coat-hanger for "top" university spam down at the bottom. Same should be down with the other linked articles within this one.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:59, 2 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove non-sourced information. (which would be all of it, I guess...) Piboy51 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 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. czar ⨹ 23:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Madam[edit]

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

This page is related to the various Dhansheel Kumar pages that have since been deleted. I'd PROD it, but it's highly likely that it would just be removed given the history with the other pages and it wouldn't qualify for any of the speedies, so I'm bringing it to AfD. The long and short is that there just isn't anything out there to show that this film is notable enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the simply and practical reason that the unreleased short film does not have the coverage to meet WP:NFF.... and if or when that ever changes, a recreation might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short film demonstrating zero notability. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 09:43, 11 January 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 all. KTC (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barandal[edit]

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

No indication of importance for the place. It is a smaller entity/land under Calamba City. There are no sources in the article. Hence, there is no adequate evidence on the subject's notability. Either transfer the contents (since the article is a stub) to the page of Calamba, Laguna or redirect to Calamba, Laguna. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons above:

Comment - a couple of things. According to our article there are 42,028 such administrative districts, the smallest in the Philippines, though each would seen to have an elected council. These are, effectively, suburbs from the looks of it and given that they are officially gazetted and defined, have elected representatives and are inhabited, they would appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. The caveat there would be if we already have articles for each of the smaller purok that come together for form these. We certainly don't need both. But these would also seem to function as worthwhile redirect and merge targets for anything "smaller" like elected councils, schools, hospitals, etc. Beyond that, the nominator is arguing for redirects, not deletion so I'm not certain these actually qualify for AFD. But mass redirect proposals have been accepted here in the past for the sake of avoiding unnecessary article-by-article bureaucracy. But I'm leaning keep all at this stage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those (or most of the) articles do not have a source. (If it has, only a single source and dependent on the government page). It is better to transfer the contents/info per barangay to the article of a bigger area (in this case, transfer the (sourced) content of each Barangay to the page of Calamba, Laguna). Instead of creating all articles per barangay, which I think is unnecessary, it is best to increase depth of the articles. (Unless the barangay is highly important and has a lot of available reliable references). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our municipality articles are undersourced also, like those Category:Municipalities of Lanao del Sur and Category:Municipalities of Maguindanao, for example, some of which have only been established in recent years, and are therefore stub articles reliant on just gov't sources. BUT we keep them anyway because they are legally recognized places with elected officials. Just like these barangays that have their own barangay captain and barangay council. See Shariff Saydona Mustapha, Maguindanao and Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur and you'll know what I mean. Or shall we also redirect those municipalities to just Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur.--RioHondo (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Carlojoseph14, there is fundamental flaw in your argument. So... St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as suggested above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND.--RioHondo (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the nutshell, A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Barangays hardly received significant coverage (just like the listed barangays) with the exception of a very few barangay like Alabang--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:GEOLAND says.--RioHondo (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you've selectively quoted from that guideline in a way that supports your argument. But a full reading of the guideline shows your argument has no basis: Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. Not much more to say, really. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "typically", which is a far cry from "always". So a simple !vote of "per WP:GEOLAND" is not enough. You need to argue why these particular articles meet the "typically considered notable" guideline. In my !vote below, I provide reasons why barangays are not inherently (i.e., "not typically") notable despite what WP:GEOLAND may suggest. —seav (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. The particular article I landed on will need all the promotional/WP:TRAVELGUIDE info stripped, but that's not a question for AFD, and I might as well do it now. LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This may be approaching Snow given only the nominator is still arguing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calamba, Laguna or a new list article. It has been my long-time philosophy in Wikipedia that majority of barangays in the Philippines do not deserve articles per WP:NOTABILITY. Sure, WP:GEOLAND suggests that barangays are inherently notable because they are populated and legal entities and with elected officials. But we don't confer inherent notableness to gated communities, suburbs, city/town districts, and quarters, even if all are populated, many are legally recognized, and some have elected officials. Yes, barangays are officially local governments in the Philippines, but many barangays are actually no more than one or two city blocks. For example, the capital city Manila has 897 barangays all with numeric names like "Barangay 1" and "Barangay 2". If WP:GEOLAND didn't exist, there would hardly be any question that most if not all Manila barangays are not notable. But the guideline (which is not policy, if I may add) suggests that Wikipedia ought to have individual articles on all of these 897 barangays. For another example, Pasay has 201 barangays, also all named numerically. Here is the boundary of Barangay 86 in Pasay as shown in OpenStreetMap; it is approximately 1 hectare in size and covers just 1 city block.
To provide more context to this AfD, the question of notability for barangays has been a frequent topic in the Philippine Wikipedia community and has been discussed since almost 10 years now. Here's a discussion in 2005 and a discussion in 2008 for your reference. There is an outdated page that lists various barangay AfD outcomes and as you can see, it's a mixed bag of keeps, merges, deletes, and no consensus outcomes. There used to be a separate article about Barangay Tisa in Cebu City, but a discussion resulted in a consensus that Barangays in Cebu City be created instead. In the intervening years, even that list article was redirected to Cebu City. The same happened with Barangays of Barugo, Leyte—it has since been redirected to Barugo, Leyte.
~~My delete vote is weak because my tendency is to say that all of Calamba's barangays are not inherently notable as I argue above.~~ But I think the articles needs individual AfDs in order to determine actual notability per barangay. —seav (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include Canlubang in this AfD since it is notable enough to have its own article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK barangays or any local government units for that matter are just like any geographic feature and are therefore inherently notable. Basically anything that shows up on the maps is worth having a wikiarticle on, even the most unfamiliar landforms like Mount Annaguan or unknown rivers like Kalawaig River. As long as they are verifiable, we keep them in wikipedia cos WP is like a gazetteer as per WP:GAZ. Even this Unnamed volcano (Ibugos) has an article you see, and if every mountain of the Cordillera Central (Luzon) or Sierra Madre (Philippines) has a name, we'll keep each and every one of them. A gazetteer thats what WP is, IMHO.--RioHondo (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia also has a gazetteer function. However, a gazetteer is simply a reference work that contains systematic information about places. It does not say that these places should have individual articles in an encyclopedia. If I have a list article like List of barangays in Zamboanga City instead of having individual articles per barangay, then I am still fulfilling the functions of a gazetteer. Your gazetteer argument is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion because the nominator is not saying that we should remove mention of Calamba's barangays, only that individual articles are not needed. —seav (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but my understanding of a gazetteer is that of a geographical dictionary. So if Wikipedia is a geographical dictionary, isn't it just logical to have all geographic features in separate entries? Sorta how Meriam Webster works, or the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names for both natural features such as landforms and artificial features such as villages (barangays) or other settlements, which IMO are far more notable than your dilapidated house of so-and-so, or your regular chapel building of Saint this and that. We need more geography-related articles on the Phils, if you look up the available articles there's not too many compared to buildings or structures, or Philippine entertainment-related articles. And you AfD'ing/merging these settlements, islands, etc is not helping at all. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you either, but gazetteers come in many different formats. There are those that are like dictionaries and databases, as in your examples. There are also those that come in tables and lists (click on "Look inside"). There's simply no requirement that each place has its own article when included in Wikipedia. The place can simply be included in a table or list in a Wikipedia article and it is still arguably a gazetteer.

As for cultural heritage houses and chapels, they pass notability because they have been the subject of reliable sources, which is what WP:NOTABILITY is all about. Somebody, other than the owner of the house, has noted the house/chapel and that it is worthy of research. If you feel barangays are more notable, then that is simply your opinion, but fortunately, WP:NOTABILITY does not depend on a single person's opinion. Besides, many people forget what barangay they are residing in, but they do know about the chapel down the street, or of stories about the old dilapidated house where somebody rich used to live. It is precisely because of what people know and have decided is worthy of writing on that forms the basis of WP:NOTABILITY. More than 99% of houses in the Philippines are therefore not notable but a few ancestral houses and residences are. In the same way, most barangays are not notable because you can't find non-trivial scholarly research about the barangay apart from its census information and elected officials. —seav (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By acknowledging this definition of a gazetteer and knowing that this could mean either of the two formats, means either way is acceptable to Wikipedia. And either format can be used in the Wikifunction as a gazetteer as per the FivePillars. This is not a question of which definition or format should be used. The guidelines only states we can use WP in this function, so we can use and maintain both individual and list articles. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely my original point. Wikipedia being a gazetteer can either have (option 1) individual articles on a set of places, or (option 2) have a single article listing those places. Thus, the gazetteer argument does not apply to the current discussion because the nominator is saying that the information about the barangays should be merged into Calamba, Laguna which is option 2. —seav (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the gazetteer argument does not apply? It is what Wikipedia is. You can have your wiktionary in a list format or the wiktionary in separate entries. WP can be both. Period. And looking at the votes here, there is obvious preference for the separate entries type of gazetteer.--RioHondo (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP: GEOLAND. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems there are plenty of !votes that only say "Keep per WP:GEOLAND". But the guideline says: Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. As I said above, just saying "per WP:GEOLAND" is a really weak reason to keep an article because the guideline only says that such places are "typically considered notable" which is different from "always considered notable". As such, there should be additional supporting evidence that the article's topic would be considered typically notable. Lacking such evidence, we default back to the basic WP:NOTABILITY guideline that requires reliable sources, which the nominator argues that there is hardly any for the currently AfD. —seav (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is an WP:OUTCOMES-based argument. It discusses the likelihood (based on past experience) that an article will be deleted. That doesn't mean that anomalies might exist where a named, recognised and populated area might be deleted if it duplicates something or is recognised but not "officially". GEOLAND represents WP:CONSENSUS from previous discussions. Such guidelines will never say "always" because such things are not inherently notable. But the community has determined that recognised, populated places are generally notable and so are typically kept. The argument that such consensus might be dismissed because it's not "always" would be the weaker argument. The "evidence" is that it is recognised and populated, that evidence "typically" being considered sufficient. Is there any suggestion any of these subjects are unrecognised or unpopulated? For what its worth, your suggestion that these should have been dealt with separately is (I think) spot on. The anomaly outside the "typical" is far more likely to be found that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up WP:OUTCOMES. Well, while GEOLAND might reflect that such places are typically considered notable in many previous discussions, if we narrow the set of discussions to those that specifically discuss notability of barangays, then as I already explained above, there is no such consensus that barangays are typically notable. Articles on barangays have been kept, merged, and deleted. So this is why I question the "typically" part when applied to barangays. I don't agree that simply invoking WP:GEOLAND is enough reason to keep a separate barangay article. —seav (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you're absolutely entitled to that view, as is the nominator. WP:GEOLAND is enough for me, but then I generally believe that pretty much all populated, officially recognised places should have articles here. Coverage of geography is (I believe) a core responsibility of an encyclopaedia. I'm from Australia and Wikipedia has coverage of almost every small suburb and every minor geographical feature. I can't see why our coverage of Filipino geography should be any less substantive. But I respect that others might disagree with that logic (which doesn't reflect on their views with regard to the Philippines generally) and so might form a different opinion here. If previous AFDs have concluded that such geographical features should be deleted, then I believe contrary to consensus in those instances (just as you may well do here). St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think that all barangays, being legally-recognized and populated places, deserve their own articles, but as a person who grew up in the Philippines, I really cannot fathom how one can create an article that can eventually become featured on really tiny barangays like Barangay 86 in Pasay or Barangay 112 in Caloocan. Any such article will only be filled with information that can all be placed in Wikidata anyway. And if WP:GEOLAND did not exist, there would be hardly any question that these tiny barangays are not notable for lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. —seav (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could say the same about a number of our special notability guidelines. I don't hold out much hope that they would each become featured articles (that'd be great, but I'm a realist) and some will be less valuable than others. But then there are a number of Australian 500-person micro-suburbs that we have articles for. Can't be any less valuable than those! St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: numbered barangays: I am open to merging these tiny villages (area-wise) with their original barrios or districts but that's it. All the rest of the barangays with proper names are big enough and stable enough to have their own articles. For example: Barangay 829 Zone 90 (Manila) would redirect to Paco, Manila (Paco being the original village before these mass partitions took place). And Barangay 86 in Pasay could be created under its original barrio of San Rafael, Pasay along with the other new barangays created between Taft Ave and Roxas Blvd north of Edsa and south of Arnaiz Ave. And Barangay 112 in Caloocan can be merged to Grace Park East. Fortunately, we don't have articles on these numbered barangays, and we will not encourage them.--02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. At least you have admitted that not all barangays without question deserve their own articles and might be better merged into collective articles. But purely numeric barangays are not the only problem. We have barangays with proper names but suffixed with numbers too like in Bacoor where we have barangays like Panapaan 1 to Panapaan 8, and Talaba 1 to Talaba 7. I don't think these barangays deserve individual article and we can debate on whether the Talaba barangays can be merged into a "Talaba, Bacoor" article or just simply discussed under Bacoor itself. —seav (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing, our editors use their heads when creating such articles, without separating Anilao Proper East and West and North and South Forbes Park. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list there's precedent in Category:Lists of barangays in Philippine cities and municipalities. Besides, it's much easier to add sources on a list versus individual stubs. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and WP:FIVEPILLARS gazetteer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and other reasons stated above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per above including wp:GEOLAND. --do ncr am 23:53, 16 January 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 (Nominator withdraws 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC).) - technical non-admin close. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Finance, Haryana[edit]

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

merge with Government of Haryana Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close? - shouldn't this discussion be held at the talk page for the merge target? You're not actually nominating this for deletion, is that right? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification there is little of value in these many daughter articles that is not in the parent article. Delete it. Legacypac (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Not appropriate to delete. At the very least, needs redirecting. Which should've been done boldly in my opinion. JT_dale^Talk~ 11:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was delete, but if notable, merge. Are state govt departments automatically notable? Either delete or do a bunch of redirects I guess. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then just redirect them mate. If someone objects then it can be discussed per WP:BRD. Government agencies can be notable and many large ones are. But smaller agencies, regional sub-agencies or local authorities are questionable. But if you're not really suggesting deletion at this stage, a discussion like this becomes confusing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I'll let someone who cares deal with it. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 12 January 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. KTC (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Yu GONG[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced only to a press release and a business listing. McGeddon (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the bonked infobox at zh:龔宇博士, he has won this business leader award [12] just last year-end. Other than that no significant notability independent of the service I could see for now. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete X-wiki spamming. The corresponding article on Chinese wikipedia has already been tagged for notability.--114.81.255.37 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the companies he was involved with are slightly notable, Dr. Gong is not, as per WP:NOTINHERIT Piboy51 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 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. czar ⨹ 23:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Foguth[edit]

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

I came across this via an AfD for another article created by the same editor that had issues with sourcing and notability. This looks to have the same issues and also has a pretty big problem with tone. None of the sources on the article shows notability for the author, as they're all either primary sources, routine database listings, merchant sites, or reviews from sites that would not be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. A search did not bring up anything to show notability for this author either. I was tempted to speedy this as promotion, but there is a slight assertion of notability via the claims that the author's books sell for thousands of dollars on eBay so I figured that this would benefit from a full AfD in case there are sources out there. I couldn't find anything to show that Foguth is notable enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two 'publishers' other than self - Dare 2 Dream Desktop Publishing and Silver Dragon Publishing. Neither suggest much in the way of notability, and D2D DTP very strongly suggests self-publishing, which is in fact the case for some of the books. Silver Dragon is hard to track down quickly, apart from a rather old 'official page' on blogspot. Seven books listed on Amazon - one is listed at $2000 used. There's nothing like hope... The others are rather cheaper. There's nothing in the references given that I could see as indicating notability - many are simple lists and others 'profiles'. I would think that the intention of the article is promotion, as is usually the case with self-published stuff. Peridon (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The Smashwords entry for Silver Dragon is here, and it doesn't help the case for notability. Per nom, fails WP:AUTHOR. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks promotional (even self-promotional) and non-notable. Bob talk 19:11, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Val De La O Show[edit]

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

Non-notable topic masquerading as a BLP of a non-notable person Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at the Associated Press article. That he was "the only syndicated television variety show produced in Spanish in the United States" seems possibly significant, but it was also syndicated to 32 markets, including the largest (NY, LA, SF) and attracted A-list guests like "Kirk Douglas, Muhammad Ali and Don Knotts". I would be shocked, given all that, if the show were not notable. As the show pre-dates the Internet, I'm having trouble finding other sources. HighBeam, Google News Archives, and Questia gave me nothing useful. I'm finding some unreliable sources and a couple minor local sources, but there's got to be more. Maybe someone with more knowledge of where to access Spanish-language newspaper/magazine archives from the 60s-80s could add some and it would be an easy keep. I will say, however, that there's a lot more information in the article than exists in the AP article (i.e. the article is horribly unsourced). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comment above, since this was from the pre-internet era, there has to be other physical and newspaper/magazine sources. In fact, after a few minutes, I found more sources from national publications Television/Radio Age (magazine), Broadcasting & Cable, and Nuestro, and culturally significant publications like "La Herencia Del Norte". I also agree with the above comment, that it is under-sourced; but given the information I can find, I too would be shocked if this weren't notable. Smile Lee (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Smile Lee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources are a bit flimsy while others appear to be quite sound even if they were found through Google Book. And there are other sources out there if one cares to dig deep enough through the search engines. A show that ran for 25 years (even if it was commissioned by different TV companies over that time) is not going to be without significant mentions in print media somewhere. Unsourced or poorly sourced is not neccessarily a case for deletion. The biographical part should be cut out. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 11 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Nation[edit]

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

I proposed a redirect to Smart city, which was reverted without much of a reason. Author thinks that one single article from a newspaper is enough to establish this as a topic; I disagree. (You'll find, in the Google hits, that this "smart nation" thing appears to be something of a PR event for Singapore.) Drmies (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence that this concept is currently notable. Delete without prejudice - should the term become more widespread and noteworthy in the future, the article can be recreated. PianoDan (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or disambiguation. As the person who converted a long and unconvincing article to a redirect (having left notes on the Singapore article talk page and on key user's pages without response) and given that there is still no mention of this concept on the Singapore page etc, I would suggest delete, or possibly disambiguation if someone is motivated to create one given the Canadian instance. PeterEastern (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Earlier versions of this article were actually fairly interesting, for example, this one. I would be willing to keep it as long as it was properly sourced and renamed to something like "Smart Nation initiative", to make it clear that this is about Singapore. On Google many sources do exist, so it passes GNG. "Smart Nation" itself is just a buzzword that will be used to refer to any number of things. The interesting thing is what the ICT agency is Singapore is doing, rather than the name. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic appears to be notable; I've added another ref. Merge with Smart city or Intelligent Nation 2015 may still be a good idea but can be worked out on article talk pages not here at AfD. ~KvnG 02:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation following the conversation would be to Merge it with Intelligent Nation 2015, given the single location focus at present or to restore the earlier content for the article and rename as 'Smart Nation initiative'. Either way, lets make it clear that this it relates to Singapore only, and not to Smart Cities more generally. PeterEastern (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The problem is the very first line, which makes this out to be anything but a specific initiative in Singapore (it apparently has a government office of the same name now), which indeed seems notable: CNBC, Business Times, Today Online, Today Online, Channel NewsAsia, Straits Times, Cnet, Zdnet, Futuregov, Telecomtv, Venturebeat....these just in the first couple pages of ghits. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this article only relates to Singapore, which seems to be the consensus, then I suggest it should be moved to 'Smart nation initiative' or merged into ' Intelligent Nation 2015' given that Canada is using the term for something else. See 'Johnston's call for a smart nation timely' and THE SMART NATION ACT: Public Intelligence in the Public Interest This article can then be a a disambiguation page to these different topics as appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 12:30, 3 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic seems to only apply to infrastructure in Singapore -- why not create a section under [[13]]? Piboy51 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bergersen[edit]

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

I quote from the article: "Per Bergersen is considered among many people as the greatest (undiscovered) Norwegian song writer to ever have lived[.]" (my emphasis) One Norwegian documentary is not enough for notability here; possibly there are actual sources (it's not clear that said documentary is one of them) but as it stands there is no real evidence this fellow has any following. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article claims he "in fact was almost unpublished". I agree a radio documentary makes a thin claim for relevance, and the point for the documentary was a scope on the talent rather than a complete artist. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's been a long time since I seriously contributed to Wikipedia, so pardon me if I'm not doing this the "correct" way.

While Per Bergersen certainly isn't a household name to the average Norwegian, his name is well known is musical circles. He inspired, amongst others the Norwegian black metal band, Mayhem.^[1] He was "unpublished" in the sense that he never had a recording contract, but his music was spread on self-published cassettes in the Norwegian alternative music scene during the late 1980s-early 1990s (which is well documented in the Ridder Sjanseløs radio documentary). The documentary in question was made by NRK, the Norwegian equivalent to the BBC as a part of its "Radiodokumentaren" series. Knut Schreiner of Turbonegro wrote an article about Bergersen in the major Norwegian musical magazine ENO^[2], and later did an article in Morgenbladet, one of the leading Norwegian newspapers regarding cultural matters.^[3] There is also a documentary film in the works by Johnny W. Nyhagen, although the progress on the project seems to have stalled.^[4] It should also be noted that the official, posthumous record, PB, is in very high demand, fetching several hundred dollars on Norwegian auction sites (having originally been made in 1000 copies).^[5]^[6] I would argue that his inclusion on Wikipedia is very much justified. Bricklayer (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.nattogdag.no/2014/08/mayhem-tretti-ar-morket/
^ http://enomagasin.no/issues/2-2/
^ http://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA
^ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cruiser-Avg%C3%A5rde-en-liten-film-om-Per-N-Bergersen/117578011623507?fref=ts
^ http://apps.qxl.no/gullkorn/musikk/
^ http://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA

Weak keep but tag as "references needed", and hopefully Bricklayer will add the reliable references to the page. I did some searching in Norwegian newspapers and found mentions, but no actual articles. Some of the papers, however, are paywalled so I didn't get very far. LaMona (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The basic premise of this article is that he could have become a great song writer. So could I! -or you, or anyone. That is not a reason for him to have an article here. Yes, the NRK radio documentary people made a documentary about him....they have written about me, too ([14]), that does not make "Huldra" on English Wikipedia noteworthy. Collectors who have paid silly amounts for this one limited PB-record would of course love him to be "notable"; that´s all I can see. (And yes; I did listen to the you-tube videos; he was a shadow of Jokke & Valentinerne. Sorry for being so harsh, but there is nothing to salvage (article-wise) here. (And please! Are you seriously trying to use Facebook-pages or qxl-pages (that is an auction-site) as sources?? They are totally not WP:RS) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Read WP:ARTIST, and ask yourself: does the late mr Bergersen fulfil any of the criteria listed there? No, he simply does not. The article is a classic WP:MEMORIAL, --Huldra (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable per User:Bricklayer--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. A merge should instead be requested. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (vent) @ 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Square chain[edit]

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

propose merge with square feet Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chain (unit), which is a good article about a coherent topic, and should be expanded as necessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better thanks. Legacypac (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Or expand the article making it an article which is similar to square mile. :) It might be better as I believe. :) Shevonsilva (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy close. Nom is recommending a merge, not a deletion. A merge request is the appropriate process. -- 120.23.175.177 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another Cardarelli unit. However, Googling ["square chain" "square feet"] does get a couple of pages of hits, indicating that unit conversion sites do think it's significant enough to support it. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with "unit conversion sites" is that they are bound to suffer from "me-too-ism". A chain is a unit of length, therefore square chain is a unit of area, and a cubic chain is a unit of volume, and cubic chains per minute is a rate of flow etc etc etc. WP is not a dictionary, and so it should not have an entry for every headword, (or mathematically obvious combination of headwords), but should have articles on coherent topics. In this case, square chains were not used much, because the acre (1 chain x 1 rod = 66 x 6 ft, gosh I know that now) was the standard unit of area. Therefore all derivative units based on the chain should redirect to Chain (unit), which is already not a bad article. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. A merge should be requested and discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Square link[edit]

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

merge with? Similar to other obscure unit articles Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chain (unit), which is a good article about a coherent topic, and should be expanded to include the subunit 'link', which is what a chain is made from. Note that there is another article Link (unit), but this is ambivalent between being the generic subunit of a chain and the specific "Gunter's chain". So much needs to be sorted out. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:Or expand the article making it an article which is similar to square mile. :) It might be better as I believe. :) Shevonsilva (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy close. Nom is recommending a merge, not a deletion. A merge request is the appropriate process. -- 120.23.175.177 (talk) 10:03, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Florida in popular culture[edit]

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

Since this article lacks any sources that actually discuss the topic of this article - UF place in and influence on popular culture - it's pure original research by synthesis as it's composed purely of editor-selected examples most of which are not supported by reliable sources. In fact, most sources are inherently unreliable (e.g., IMDB) and are broken links anyway. Like nearly everything other topic in or proposed to be addressed by an encyclopedia article, if there are a substantial number of reliable sources that substantially address this topic then it may be a notable topic. But as currently written the article has no such sources and it has been in this state for several years so it's time to delete it and merge the handful of salvageable examples into the main UF article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all of the sources currently in the source, these are the only ones that I can find that substantially mention UF (i.e., don't merely mention that the item was written by an alumnus or involve one or more people from the state of Florida):

[15] is a blog post that purports to compare the pop culture...something of UGA and UF. I can't find any indications that the author is an expert of any sort or why we would use this as a reliable source.
[16] is a news article about a small independent film that takes place in Gainesville. Its only connection appears to be that the author of the book on which the film is based taught at UF.
[17] is a review of a movie in which the reviewer mentions a "great running gag about Florida Gator fans." I can't seem to find any information about the author or the site's editors to determine if the source is reliable.
[18] is an article on Snopes.com. I would assert that Snopes is generally a reliable source but this particular source doesn't speak very strongly to the pop culture influence or role of UF since the article explicitly disproves an urban legend that erroneously associates a Tom Petty song with UF.
[19] is news article that briefly mentions that a cartoon strip (Blondie) that had some UF buildings in the background in one daily strip because the illustrator's son was a UF student.

Those are the best sources that are currently in the article and those aren't nearly good enough to justify the notability of this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of list articles (here, "the University of Florida in popular culture") ought to be notable under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of the specific stated subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG, and speaking as an alumnus of the university, I see a collection of random mentions of or references to the university in popular culture that vary from trivial to vaguely embarrassing. I see nothing worth saving. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly problems with this article, but I don't yet see an analysis here that will show us the right way forward. It ultimately isn't relevant or useful to ask whether "University of Florida in popular culture" is in and of itself a notable subject. This subtopic obviously a WP:SPLIT from University of Florida, and it is limited to notable media. In that sense, it is not only (in theory) valuable information for the main UF topic, but also (in theory) encyclopedic cross-referencing in that it is gathering together different topics that all touch upon a central subject and that wouldn't otherwise be linked here. Now for the bad news...
Nearly all of the cultural references are completely worthless. We do not care if a UF shirt or hat happens to be visible in a movie (and it saddens me that anyone would waste time adding that to an article), we do not care if UF is name-dropped as part of a character's backstory in expository dialogue. None of that is substantive and none of it is really about UF. I think that completely wipes out the cinema section (there are a couple that say they're about faculty, but not that they actually depict them as faculty) and all of the television references. But it seems that the novel Rubyfruit Jungle actually uses UF as a significant setting (and it saddens me that anyone might waste time removing that from an article), as does the Haldeman novel listed, and maybe one or two others under the literature section. The "other" section is not really appropriate for this subtopic because it's not really about depictions of UF in cultural works, and most of that should also probably be cleansed as insubstantial or be incorporated elsewhere (the bit about the mascot would belong in an article about the school's athletics, for example).
So that leaves me agreeing with the nominator and the above commenter that this makes no case for a standalone existence, but there are at least a few entries that should be merged back to University of Florida#In popular culture (or other related UF articles) in highly condensed form. This could be done by listing in one sentence the notable books/books by notable authors that are set there, for example. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: The "popular culture" section was added to the main University of Florida article on June 18, 2009: [20]; prior to that, there was no similar section to be found in the main article: [21]. The stand-alone list was created on June 19, 2009: [22]. The content appears to be a scratch creation by as a single editor, and was spun out within 24 hours. In 2009, WikiProject University of Florida was very active, and had recently concluded a major article creation/expansion phase, and this article's creator was one of the two or three most active WP:UF article creators. This article was created in apparent emulation of a series of these articles created for other universities: [23]. When I started actively editing in 2009, WP:UF had more such weak sister articles; most of the weak articles and lists have long since been deleted, merged, or significantly improved and upgraded. There is insufficient noteworthy content here to support a stand-alone list article; while the movies, books, etc., may be notable, their mentions of and/or references to the University of Florida are mostly trivial. As noted, there aren't more than three or four references in the entire list worth preserving anywhere (Robert Cade is a Good Article, and is referenced in both the main university and sports program articles; the reference to ESPN's power mascot is fanboy trivia). Frankly, I am surprised this list survived as long as it did. Relying on the self-evident notability of the University of Florida to support a list like this is a stretch; and the list subject does lack significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources -- that may not be determinative in a list article AfD per WP:LISTPURP and other relevant list guidelines, but it should be part of the analysis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of a major academic institution as an important setting or a major plot elerment in multiple notable works is an appropriate subject for a list article. We've dealt with these before, and when the material is non-trivial, we've usually kept it. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked on my talk page to comment on whether "more than3 or " of the items are non0-trivial. Triviality is a difficult concept to establish--I understand it to mean "used in the background in an unimportant way". This would certainly exclude all the mentions of Tshirts, The way to deal with that sort of content is to remove it, not remove the article. Perhaps the residue will be 3 or 4 , perhaps it will be 10, but in either case that's enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hound you because you've !voted differently than I did but it would be nice if you could more concretely justify how this topic meets our noteability guidelines. In particular, the section of those guidelines addressing stand-alone list article states: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." The article at hand cites no reliable sources that have discussed these items as a group or set. Without such sources, I simply can't understand how this topic merits an encyclopedia article under our current paradigms of (a) notability and (b) prohibition of original research. ElKevbo (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people always overlook the first word of that quote from LISTN (not to mention its whole second paragraph)? It's not a requirement, it's "one" way to analyze list content, and it's more appropriate for some lists than others. I can't say it makes a lot of sense here. If there were 100 notable films all verifiably set at UF, it would be silly to think we couldn't list them together just because no reliable source have ever published a "The University of Florida in Film" treatise. Of course, we don't have 100 films here, we have at best a handful of works that can all be covered in a mere couple prose sentences at University of Florida#In popular culture. So let's not fruitlessly froth over notability, given that there's a simple solution that will still delete this while preserving (per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE) what little content is worth preserving. The best counterargument to DGG is that nearly everything in this list is trivial and so there's no basis for maintaining it as a standalone list instead of a concise subtopic section in the parent article. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough notable films that have significant relationships to UF to warrant a "List of films connected to the University of Florida" article then I'd be fine with that. But the article in question isn't framed as a true list article listing only notable items but it's framed as a regular article about a cohesive, notable topic and it fails WP:N. And, as you note above and as I already noted in the nomination, it's also full of trivial items that are largely unsourced or poorly sourced information.

And you're free to disagree or ignore others but please don't attack others or characterize their engagement as "fruitless froth." ElKevbo (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. KTC (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Guatemala City[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. This is just a directory listing showing the address there is also no bilateral article to redirect this article to .also nominating for the same reasons:

Embassy of Colombia, Kingston
Embassy of Colombia, Tegucigalpa

LibStar (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - embassies are not inherently notable. They need to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH like everything else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 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 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kek Look Seah Temple[edit]

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

No mention of notability, only link given is a youtube page. NetworkOP (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. Sounds like you could have marked it as a stub, or perhaps tagged it for notability, or tried to develop the article from sources, yourself. Has wp:BEFORE been performed? There's no assertion in the nomination that sources are not readily available. Note the article is in category of 19th century Buddhist temples, so it has some historical merit. And there is a source, the Youtube video, included in the article. No clear reason this should be at AFD, so I think "Keep" is appropriate. --do ncr am 22:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable columbarium in Perak as per newspaper coverage: [24] "Some of the more famous columbariums in Ipoh are at the Sam Poh Tong cave temple near Gunung Rapat, Perak Tong near Tasek and the Kek Lok Seah temple in Bercham." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dropping "Temple" from the search helps me find this book coverage, which is The Development and Distribution of Dejiao Associations in Malaysia and Singapore: A Study on a Chinese Religious Organization, by CB Tan - 1985. The photo caption gives another name for it, also, which i didn't try searching on. There are alternate names apparently. I would not trust an assessment that the temple is not notable, if it is based on poor English-language searching on Google. --do ncr am 02:57, 6 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned/described in a few books.[25]-[26]-[27] Bladesmulti (talk) 10:23, 10 January 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 Brahmanbaria. For next time, this likely could have been redirected before coming to AfD. Be bold! czar ⨹ 23:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beebarian[edit]

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

This is just a demonym for people from Brahmanbaria. This is more like a dictionary entry, not encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 04:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – and add to Brahmanbaria – Margin1522 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Brahmanbaria. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obie (dog)[edit]

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

If we are to be a proper encyclopaedia, we cannot have articles about dogs just because their obesity issues were published. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY; WP:1E at best. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow, that is a lot of Facebook and YouTube links. What would the article look like it all info not sourced by reliable references were removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is easily answered by following the links above, such as the Google News search. At least one international media outlet covered the story. Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual fat dogs are non notable, probably until they start producing My 800 Pound Puppy --TKK! bark with me! 22:49, 7 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dog is "famous" for 1E, but it is a trivial event. Gaff (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even with all the references to Facebook and Youtube, the references on the article already show plenty of actual news sources covering this subject - I see CBS, CNN, Fox, the NY Daily News, KATU, and MSNBC in there. Additionally, I'm not sure how WP:1E applies here. The most obvious problem is that 1E is about biographical articles - about people known for only one event. This is not an article about a person, it is an article about a dog. I'm also not sure about how this qualifies as an "event". The article mentions multiple events. Those events all relate to the animal's appearance, but, hey, so do Grumpy Cat's. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is trivia; a fat dog does not justify an article as it simply is not sufficiently notable and does not meet WP:GNG. As for all those FaceBook, You tube links: well ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:29, 16 January 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. czar ⨹ 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Feiner[edit]

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

Promo of a nonnotable private entertainment party organizer. Claim to notability is some obscure awards. -M.Altenmann >t 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a fairly extensive search, and couldn't find anything that would establish her notability. JSFarman (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 22:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (utter) @ 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chew) @ 22:06, 3 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There was some information about her early career as pianist, but very little about the agent/organizer business. I couldn't find anything about the award except that she got it. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Bennett (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independently. I redirected it to Ocean Colour Scene, but this was reverted by IP with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, however Merge into Ocean Colour Scene would be preferable. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional references to Andy Bennett's earlier career with the band he formed "the elements" the band were signed to Acid Jazz Records and released an album that charted in the indie charts. The song caught in a storm of that album reached the top ten of the indie charts as well as the album reaching the top ten. I have also added the information on where Bennett is mentioned in the essential rock discography. Written by martin c strong. Hopefully these two pieces of information will be enough to prevent the article from being deleted. I would appreciate a message if this is not enough and I will endeavour to add as much additional information as I can. Regards Alfie Mahone Alfiemahone1991 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Comment Thanks for contributing, Alfiemahone1991. I'm assuming you're the Alfie Mahone who is a colleague of Andy Bennett (according to article)? Boleyn (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not a colleague of his I'm simply a part time musician who is aware of him and his work. Do you now feel that this additional information is enough to keep the article online. Kind regards Alfie Mahone 94.11.54.158 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Bennett's page should remain on the grounds that some of the other members of Ocean Colour scene are of more Dubious notability then him he has at least written material himself with his own band that has sucessfully charted in the indie charts and recieved critical acclaim. (T Halama) 37.152.35.2 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The others are also tagged for notability, but your argument is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that isn't an accepted arugment at AfD, Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No but the second criteria is for notability is that they have had an album which has featured in any music chart for a country which Bennett has which can be mentioned on several websites two of Which are linked to on his page and he was also signed to a major music label that label being acid jazz and released an album under that label. He also wrote and recorded the song old pair of jeans featured on the Saturday album Which reached the top 40 in the UK album charts so all of those factors should be significant evidence for his page to remain. In light of these new additions would appreciate another senior editor of Wikipedias opinion. Alfiemahone1991 (talk) 16:36, 6 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:05, 10 January 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. A majority are in favour of deletion, but more important than a simple majority, the arguments for deletion are stronger. If anyone feels that a meaningful article could be written for this topic, this decision does not preclude that, but the current content isn't likely to be very useful. If anyone does want access to the deleted content in the future, however, I am more than happy to provide it. Michig (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey in Rochester NY[edit]

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

Absolute nonsense article that is patent gibberish and should be speedy deleted under G1. Can't be understood and no proof of notability. An editor for no logical reason took down CSD tags. ...William 03:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I understand it to be a list of youth hockey teams; delete for failure of WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Initially I PRODed this article believing it failed WP:GNG but on second thought I think it is notable. Remember, per WP:ARTN, article content does not determine notability. While the content is very poor, the subject is notable. Rochester has a long hockey history and there are plenty of references showing that "hockey in Rochester" is a notable topic. What we need to do is improve the article to be something like ice hockey in Ottawa. As for the argument that it should be speedy deleted per WP:G1, that doesn't apply because we can understand the content even if it's poorly written. The criteria says " In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 09:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference between this article and an article like Ice hockey in Ottawa is like night and day. In all honesty, unless someone out there wants to put a ton of effort into improving this article, the subject matter here can probably best be served by a Redirect/Merge to the parent Sports in Rochester article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have almost speedied it for not showing why its notable (A7). It is definitely not something that passes muster and should be deleted. This is nowhere near comparable to ice hockey in Ottawa, I am guessing that the amount of books/articles that have written specifically about ice hockey in Ottawa is significantly higher than Rochester. If there is anything it could just be put in the sports in Rochester page. Remember just because something has happened somewhere for a long time, doesn't necessarily mean it is notable. As it stands now there is nothing worth saving. This really should never have been brought to AfD, it should have been speedied or left for the prod to complete. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 10 January 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. KTC (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gracie[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won the Best Director award at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that considered a significant film award? --Bejnar (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 20:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 18:56, 2 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Available cites may be a little on the thin side, but mainly oppose because WP:POINTy is a misuse of this process. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel this person is worth an entry - he has 20 years experience in Aussie TV and has directed numerous features. Dutchy85 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage and body of work for notability. Artw (talk) 15:34, 11 January 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. KTC (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Long (director)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 20:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having a tough time finding information of him on Google.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 18:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:CREATIVE criteria #3. There are eight reviews for Naked Fame on Metacritic and this review of Idol by the Los Angeles Times. @AbigailAbernathy: For filmmakers, try Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. They link to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, it doesn't satisfy WP:creative #3 ("The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work..."). The LAT blurb for 'Idol' notes it airing at only one theater, and Naked Time (his most-successful project) only grossed a quarter-million, so neither is significant or well-known. Pax 04:36, 9 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pretty thin cites available, but I am concerned any time WP:POINTy pollutes the AfD process. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - was able to add some refs, but for the most part I am only finding reviews where a nice solid interview or profile would be better for establishing notability. Probably scrapes by on WP:CREATIVE. Artw (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of film reviews to pass GNG. Naked Fame is perfectly notable as a "significant or well-known work"; gross profit is irrelevant, press coverage is what matters. Earflaps (talk) 15:28, 14 January 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 Satyajit Ray. Michig (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Chowdhury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE Makro (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be warned that this editor has been making several bad faith AfDs in response to his own article's AfD. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 17:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst ! 18:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Choudhury" is an alternative transliteration that pulls up additional sources such as My Years With Apu and Portrait of a Director: Satyajit Ray. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have an independent notability outside the shadow of Satyajit Ray. --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 5 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Satyajit Ray. No independent notability. AadaamS (talk) 13:22, 10 January 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. Sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Post Globe[edit]

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

Three years defunct blog; old stub article without references. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though whether a valid deletion rationale was given is unclear, this does indeed appear to fail WP:GNG/WP:NWEB. A few sources upon its launch, but no enduring in depth coverage. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search oF Wikipedia itself uncovers 10 mentions of "Seattle Post Globe". Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of a site in Wikipedia doesn't indicate notability. It has to be be the subject of independent, secondary reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If usage as a reference in other Wikipedia articles counted, one of my own articles would be "safe". Pax 04:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Links from other articles are accepted as one of the nine Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. See WP:MANYLINKS: "Even the bare mention in other articles demonstrates notability." – Margin1522 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It wasn't a blog. It was an online news site founded by reporters who were laid off when the Seattle PI ceased publication. It continued for 3 years but never developed a viable revenue model and shut down after the reporters left, some because they found work elsewhere. In that sense it was part of the story of the continuing crisis of local newspaper reporting in the US. I think the article could be expanded to reflect that (WP:HASPOT). It was mentioned along with similar sites in this book, discussed twice by the Columbia Journalism Review [28][29], and on local sites [30][31]. These are reliable sources. I think there's enough material for an article there. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:32, 8 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if was notable at the time, then Keep per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Margin1522 for discovering sources establishing notability. Notability is not temporary, so the fact it closed is not relevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 11 January 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. czar ⨹ 22:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy You[edit]

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

Song fails WP:GNG. It is a stand-alone track released "for the fans", was never promoted on any music shows, and shows no evidence of charting in Korea. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources listed are a record chart to verify the release date and the artist's own website/youtube. Again, all of these articles about NC.A songs have been created by a single user, so I think this is just passionate fan activity at work here. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability at all Asdklf; (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Random86 (talk) 08:10, 4 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Non notable song. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 10 January 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. czar ⨹ 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sod Solutions[edit]

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

This promotional article was evidently written by an undisclosed paid contributor. The vast majority of the article's claims are unreferenced. The references which do exist do not provide significant coverage of the company (and many of them don't mention it at all, or look to be reprinted press releases). Psychonaut (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Clearly promotional. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunards sources, The promo gone so no reason to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 21:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Parente, Audrey (1998-06-01). "Everything Is Coming Up Roses On Elmer's Sod Farm". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Elmer Kirkland, a tobacco-chewing 68-year-old, who had an elementary school education, has developed and patented new sods selling in America, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and South Africa.
  So around the world, the grass truly is greener because of Elmer and Stella Kirkland, and their children, who have run a sod farm in New Smyna Beach since 1956.
  The family's roots in the grass business reach back as far as the 1930s. But the mom-and-pop team, now stockholders in two companies -- Kirkland Sod, owned and run by their children, and Sod Solutions , a distribution company based in Mt. Pleasant, S.C. -- has accomplished much more than just letting the grass grow under their feet.
  ...
  After a year of DNA testing and written and photographic reports on field tests of the new product, the two men began Sod Solutions, which Wagner describes as "the largest patented controlled grass producer that has been."
  Recently Sod Solutions has applied for two new patents for Zoysia grasses, named Empire and Empress.
2. Williams, Charles (1997-04-28). "Grass is green on Wagner's side". The Post and Courier. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Tobey A. Wagner says the grass is greener - and healthier - on his side of the fence.
  Wagner is president of Sod Solutions Inc., a Mount Pleasant-based firm that has developed and patented a new variety of St. Augustine grass, one that tolerates shade, drought and cold.
  ...
  After getting the patent in 1994 and starting Sod Solutions, Wagner began promoting the product.
3. "S.C. company gets patent on turfgrass". The Index-Journal. 1996-02-23. p. 14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-02. Retrieved 2015-01-02 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Sod Solutions, a South Carolina-based company, was recently issued a patent on their new turfgrass, Palmetto St. Augustine. The first commercial crop of Palmetto will be harvested this spring in Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.
4. Varkonyi, Charlyne (1996-02-16). "DKNY Bedsheets? Maybe". Sun-Sentinel. p. 1E.
  The article notes:
  
  A new sod is taking root in Florida.
  Sod Solutions of West Columbia, S.C., has developed Palmetto St. Augustine, a natural hybrid that keeps its color and appearance in conditions too cold or too dry for other St. Augustine grasses.
  "It has a deeper root system that makes it more tolerant to drought," says Tobey Wagner, the patent holder. "The grass holds up between waterings, has a deep green color and is a finer bladed St. Augustine."
  Discovered in New Smyrna Beach, Fla., the native grass was originally intended for the upper Southern states and Southeast coast because of its cold tolerance. But Wagner says when its shade tolerance was discovered, it took off here. Out of the 36 companies licensed to grow Palmetto, 18 are in Florida.
  "Florida has it all - heat, drought and excessive rain," Wagner says. "It did real well, especially in southwest Florida where they had over 100 inches of rain."
  Sod Solutions has tested the grass for six years, including demonstration sites at Universal Studios, Disney Studios and Mounts Botanical Gardens in West Palm Beach.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sod Solutions to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 2 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, Sandstein 10:57, 2 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I beleive that the sources pointed out by Cunard (talk · contribs) along with the ones already included in the article are enough to establish notability. I agree with Psychonaut (talk · contribs) that the article was promotional, so I have done a significant trimming of the promotional and unsourced content, so in my opinion it now meets WP:V and is no longer promotional.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:25, 10 January 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 is clear to keep. Lack of concerted, policy-based arguments all around. czar ⨹ 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 British Academy Scotland New Talent Awards[edit]

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

"best upcoming talent" means not yet notable. In fact, though these awards were in 2011, none of them seem to be notable so far. DGG ( talk ) 09:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards are recognised by IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000124/overview) --ChrisGFA (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rising star award hasn't been removed from the 67th British Academy Film Awards article even though the same applies. --ChrisGFA (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"What exactly is recognition of an award by IMdB, and how does that confer notability on the award? DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Not every film award is listed on imdb. Whilst users can make suggestions for edits, the awards section has to go before a panel. Imdb is recognised as the main central database for information regarding film, television and its industry professionals. --ChrisGFA (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry ChrisGFA, only one "vote" to each editor. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has some merit and certainly has reliable secondary sources. Its not much different from the likes of ACB Best Young Player Award, AFL Rising Star, Euroleague Rising Star, 2009 Shanghai International Film Festival, to name but a few. Evening Times (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are XFactor contestants with pages on wikipedia who have haven't been heard from since their appearance. If we are going to remove Bafta winners for being non notable then there would need to be a serious overhaul of Wikipedia. Evening Times (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is considerable press attention around the winners and bear in mind this is BAFTA recognising these professionals, not some random film club. Notability argument for grounds of deletion seems somewhat weak. DrColePorter (talk) 02:13, 7 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above - If it were some minor club then I'd understand but BAFTA's are pretty big when it comes to awards & all that so will have to say Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor award by a major organisation. Passes the importance test. doktorb _words^deeds 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Perrin (fire chief)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. There exists no significant coverage, only passing mentions. Does not meet WP:BIO: Never has been nominated for any awards; while he has made contributions in his field, there are none that would "belong to the ages". ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is one of those professions whose members don't get a lot of press. No different with Perrin. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Non-notable municipal official. Does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 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. czar ⨹ 22:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fevziye Camer[edit]

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

Albanian stylist who fails WP:GNG -- Y not? 17:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drawl) @ 20:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 20:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person is a Turkish-Albanian stylist. There is the ground to qualify for an wikiarticle if all the sources are translated and quoted as they should. But the article is written so badly, and hard to believe that the person has any intention of improving it. Since it is a living person, better DELETE it. Mondiad (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited in the article don't add up to a pass of WP:GNG and I didn't find other sources, and even if notability could be established the article would need pretty much a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 09:14, 9 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:04, 10 January 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. czar ⨹ 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concert Zap[edit]

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

Advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 00:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete unless anyone can find the sources where Concert Zap was supposedly mentioned, then my !vote is a keep. Unfortunately, I severely doubt that Concert Zap is covered in reliable sources. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another promotional article, failing WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, by a WP:DISRUPTive promotional editor. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any independent reliable sources cited here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd have to agree with those above. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - No evidence of notability - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Emilysantoss (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see no sources who write about the company itself. The Banner talk 19:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the coverage cited in the article appears to be independently reported; all of it looks like advertising and press releases submitted by the company itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh god her !vote has outweighed all of ours now!, Admin should close per her now!. </sarcasm> –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jhenaidah Ex-Cadets Association[edit]

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

Promotional page, it was created like 7 years ago and not even notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. The association can be mentioned in the college article; but yet do not even worth a redirect. – nafSadh did say 18:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] The New Werner Twentieth Century Edition (Volume 25 ed.). p. 222. Retrieved 3 January 2015.

[2] ttp://www.nattogdag.no/2014/08/mayhem-tretti-ar-morket/

[3] ttp://enomagasin.no/issues/2-2/

[4] ttp://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA

[5] ttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Cruiser-Avg%C3%A5rde-en-liten-film-om-Per-N-Bergersen/117578011623507?fref=ts

[6] ttp://apps.qxl.no/gullkorn/musikk/

[7] ttp://morgenbladet.no/kultur/2010/en_jokke_fra_roros#.VJ2H2ANAdA

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]