Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 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 keep. Sufficient coverage; these links can be added: 1, 2, 3 (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 12:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic Music Group[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination started by 68.184.12.79 (talk · contribs). Their reason given in the edit summary was "Some material are unsourced and not referenced correctly. It is now noted for deletion". I passed this submission through Articles for creation but am neutral on the result. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid deletion rationale has been offered. "Unsourced material" (of which there is very little) is not a reason for deletion. In terms of notability, this music label has signed multiple notable artists, which is usually a strong indicator of notability. It also has sufficient RS coverage to meet the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:38, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Blanco White[edit]

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

Memorial page for an attorney who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There is one claim of notability, his induction into the IP Hall of Fame, but that's not enough to meet the inclusion criteria. PROD was removed by author without comment. Should be deleted per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thank MelanieN (talk · contribs) for her extremely kind yet exceedingly painfully ill-thought out nomination of this article for the dustbin of doom. If we care to look at the article and references provided, and not what MelanieN (talk · contribs) thinks she's read, it is quite apparent that adequate sources are provided. The so-caled argument for deletion consists of WP:NOTMEMORIAL; I hesitate to point this out because it should be obvious but this isn't an inclusion argument, and it isn't even policy (WP:NOTPOLICY). The Prod was removed because of its basal stupidity. Furthermore, indications of notability are provided, most prominently an obituary in The Times. One does not receive entries in Who's Who and an obituary in The Times for being a run of the mill lawyer. Finally, FFS, heaven forbid that I write articles on slightly obscure but notable deceased public figures, instead of lists of the personal details of minor footballers and cricketers that's what wanted if you choose to take Wikipedia seriously. I am laughing so much at your lack of competence user:MelanieN. Le petit fromage (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTMEMORIAL, part of WP:NOT, is policy, FWIW. So is WP:NPA, and you seem perfectly capable of advancing your argument without resorting to personal attacks, so please strike your last sentence as inappropriate. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 14 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 23:53, 13 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 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Le petit fromage, I can tell you are upset about this. (However, you really shouldn't use that kind of edit summary no matter how upset you are.) Clearly this man and his family are very important to you, since you recently created Margaret Justin Blanco White and G.R. Blanco White as well as this article. Nobody wants to hear that a subject they care about might not meet the criteria for inclusion here. But Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it does have to have criteria for inclusion. The basic criterion is the general notability guideline which states that the subject must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The Times is certainly an independent reliable subject, and some people think that a Times obituary is all that is needed to meet the criteria. If they do, they can say so; that is why we are having a public discussion here. "Who's Who" is not as strong, since there are many Who's Who publications, some of which are based entirely on payment to be included. As for the Hall of Fame - we grant automatic inclusion for a highly significant prize such as Nobel or Pulitzer; the IP Hall of Fame does not fall in that category. The decision to keep or delete will be made by the Wikipedia community, not by any one individual, and this discussion will remain open for a week. I see that you have added some additional references; keep that up, if you can; depending on what the sources are, they might help to prove the suitability of the subject for inclusion. Please understand that I have nothing against the gentleman, or against you; I am just enforcing Wikipedia's standards here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 is not the guideline for "significant coverage" and its citation is not likely to be helpful: See WP:NOT42. James500 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the essay "NOT42" but I don't happen to agree with it. I find 42 a very useful shortcut for explaining, in simple language, what we are talking about in this kind of discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times obituary (what I can see of it for free) says he "was the best intellectual property lawyer to have practised in England since Fletcher Moulton". This commemoration speech calls him "a giant in his field" and says that "his text book 'Patents for Inventions' became a classic for many, many years". The preface to Guidebook to Intellectual Property describes him as the "greatest of all IP lawyers". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times obit plus a commemoration speech published in an Oxford journal is good enough for notability. Bacchiad (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Note that he was also inducted into the American Intellectual Property Law Association's Hall of Fame, posthumously. http://www.aipla.org/about/newsroom/PR/press-releases/Pages/IP-HALL-OF-FAME.aspx All together, he seems to pass WP:ACADEMIC at #1 and possibly #2, and WP:AUTHOR #3. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies GNG. An obituary in The Times is conclusive proof of notability, as is an entry in A & C Black's Who's Who, which is the original Who's Who, has an awesome reputation for only including notable individuals, and is not comparable to its imitators, some of which are scams. QC might satisy WP:ANYBIO as it "indicates pre-eminence within the profession", especially one appointed in 1969 when there were significantly fewer QCs, and is presently included in WP:LAWYERS. James500 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, all, for your comments and the additional sources - particularly the commemoration speech which finally supplies enough biographical information for a proper Wikipedia article. I intend to withdraw the nomination, but first I will add the new information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered an obituary in a major national newspaper as clear evidence of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination after improvements to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youth of the Centrist Democrat International[edit]

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

No solid indication this organization was ever established, or if it was, that anybody noticed. Sole ext. link is dead. It gets a passing mention here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG. Vrac (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is so little about the CDI itself that anything about its divisions belong in that article. TFD (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with main CDI article. Fails depth of coverage criterion if nothing else. Bacchiad (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom then redirect to Centrist Democrat International. -- Sam ^Sing! 21:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:14, 21 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 Withdrawn. The nominator is now advocating a keep position. I recommend further discussion about the clean-up of this page to be conducted either at the talk page of the article or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#National Hockey League lore. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk 01:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League lore[edit]

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

It is a violation of WP:Not Anyoldeditor (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this page? I created it because an equivalent page for National Football League lore exists, and NHL fans believed that one for the NHL was important and warranted as well.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not actually sure where I stand on this concept. It could serve as something of an addendum to the History of the National Hockey League series. If kept though, the specific implementation needs to be reworked. First and foremost, massive amounts of POV need to be cleaned up. Also, it mixes some of the significant moments in NHL history with pure trivia - notably "May Day" and Roenick and Roy's press conference trash talk. Lidstrom scoring from centre ice? Really? Statue of Liberty goal? Really? Honestly, this looks like the list was compiled by Red Wings fans at Reddit. "Notability" is not the right word for what I mean, but we would need a way to demonstrate that specific events really are part of true NHL lore. I can think of a couple general hockey books I have that do specific call-outs of certain things, but the risk of this devolving into trivia is high. I have a few other thoughts and concerns, but those are more of an editorial nature and is something we could work through if a keep opinion emerges here. Reso lute 00:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lidstrom scores from centre ice is understandable to be removed, but the Statue of Liberty goal is actually quite famous among hockey fans. The issue also is that NHL lore, while notable to hockey fans, isn't as established in the same way as NFL lore, despite the fact that the former is a major part of Canadian sports culture. Roenick and Roy was included because when I opined on this piece on NHL message boards, the consensus was that it should be included, as it's a very famous event. However, if it's not truly notable "lore", then yes, I understand removing it. The POV problem I have been told about, and I agree, it does need to be cleaned up. It's written more dramatically, like a book or an news article, rather than an encyclopedic entry. If this page gets a "keep" consensus, I will definitely contribute strongly to the cleanup process.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with cleanup: I saw some NPOV issues and thought the article deserved to be deleted. Anyoldeditor (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the more typical approach in Wikipedia for an overview article listing "notable events and incidents considered important or memorable" for a topic is to have a "Timeline of..." article. I think the motivation for such an article should be clarified: is it essentially a summary article for the "History of the National Hockey League" series? isaacl (talk) 01:42, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Museum Association[edit]

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

WP:NN professional association with 359 members. The Dissident Aggressor 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even a substantive claim of notability (close to meeting CSD A7, but not quite). A search via Google turned up no significant sources that discuss the organization in depth. Thus, fails WP:NORG. --Biblioworm 05:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talk) 11:34, 19 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 a7 (still not really an assertion of notability), g11 (article is promotional, and was created by apparent paid editor). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brannon Bates[edit]

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

Not notable as an actor, director, musician, etc. Fails WP:GNG. (Deleted previously in 2005.) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article also flagged for copyvios, editor appears to have attempted corrections but as such has lost a large amount of content aside from simple lists. Article was also previously deleted, possibly eligible for CSD under WP:G4 if information on the deleted version can be provided. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has film credits dating after the previous Afd, so G4 doesn't apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 13 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 23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:51, 13 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 23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biography has been updated with links and bibliography but it is not complete. A "contents" section needs to be added as well as citing. Also, the image has been updated with the sharing license added. We are working on it, let us know what else we can do to help the process. 2602:30A:2CF0:1420:5524:C9A2:4D15:EA47 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see if there is enough information now to remove the flags at the top of the page. There is still a lot of work to be done cleaning up the page and "unreliable" scources need to be sifted and removed. But there should be enough there for the flags to be removed at this point. Let us know what else we can do if you see immediate needs and we will continue to polish the page. Chadpaul222 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no WP:reliable sources listed as far as I can see. PR releases, store links, images, etc. don't qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better. The molestation section was removed. Was it against the guidelines or improper / offensive? Chadpaul222 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was unsourced controversial material in a WP:BLP, against policy. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No significant roles in notable productions. Overly promotional, what's with all the stupid name dropping about his haircut? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a worldwide trend. What have you done keyboard hero. Just delete the profile then but also delete all of the photos from your database permanently, if you have the authority to do that. Or can you just sit at your desk and make rude comments about people's work. Come to a show and let's talk about it. Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah come to a show Johnlamint2253 (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want this deleted now. The mods deleted all of the relevant biographical information. Wikipedia is begging for donations anyway, you won't even be around long enough for it to matter. Ever heard of the internet database? It's the new wikipedia. Delete all of the brannon bates photos as well if you can figure out how to do it. Enjoy life as a nerd. Chadpaul222 (talk) 09:48, 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. KTC (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Mac[edit]

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

There is no notability asserted for this summer camp, which are a dime a dozen in the United States. The references _{which are dead links} primarily point to this Allen McBride person, with only a blurb about "cow soccer" in regional media. I fail to find the significance of the subject. Keegan (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Bacchiad (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A couple local stories, but not enough coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 08:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication as to why this camp is particularly notable compared to any other regular summer camp. --Biblioworm 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is just a camp, surrounded with Talladega National Forest. No reliable source and coverage to claim notability in particular. Fails WP:GNG A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 19:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:14, 21 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 nomination withdrawn (self / non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yevade Subramanyam[edit]

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

Film is upcoming (WP:CRYSTALBALL applies) and does not have much coverage; fails notability guidelines (WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 10:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:26, 7 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 05:26, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. India-related articles are tempting to delete because they tend to be poorly written and treat subjects that are of no interest to Americans. However, this seems to be a fairly big production. It also claims to be the first Telugu movie shot on Everest, which is something I guess. So I vote keep. Bacchiad (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alt: WP:INDAFD: Yevade Subramanyam

Keep Sorry nominator, but we do not claim WP:CRYSTALBALL if truly diligent WP:BEFORE shows notability. As this has completed filming and is the first Telugu film to be shot on Everest, we have a decent assertion of notability,[1] and as it IS receiving coverage and is both sourcable and improvable,[2] we have a topic that meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). It needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelQSchmidt: @Bacchiad: Thanks for the comments and sources. Wasn't aware of INDAFD - through my searching, I didn't find the short (and rather repetitive) articles giving a basic description of the movie to be particularly convincing of notability. I do note that I missed this and this, however, which are expansive and valuable for the article. I'll go ahead and withdraw my nomination. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:56, 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. KTC (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Blade[edit]

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

Non-notable internet company. References are either affiliated or only mention it in passing, without providing any in-depth coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:16, 6 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 05:13, 7 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 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Full disclosure, I am this article's creator. While this article may not have the support of many news sources written solely on the subject of Social Blade, this company's platform is a common tool used by many media outlets to gather information about subjects that they report on - reports which would not be nearly as substantial (if even exist at all) without their citing of Social Blade. Sources like this IB Times article would not exist without the data collected from the platform in which this article is written about. Khsunkey (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's speculation, and beside the point. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:GNG, the sources must be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A brief citation does not qualify as "significant coverage" nor does it establish notability. Piboy51 (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NCORP. Vrac (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is a tough one. On one hand it looks like many reliable sources have made use of their work and the company name returns a whole lot of ghits, but I'm failing to find articles about the company. I'd be happy to change my !vote if these turn up, of course. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 08:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG, notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Although this company is cited in a number of articles, there is little significant coverage of the company itself. Piboy51 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'm off to clean up the various articles junked up by the creator in a failed effort to create links to it. Sigh. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:43, 21 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Brady[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. The article has no reliable sources and shows no significant coverage of him. Nothing to support a claim he meets WP:NACTOR. Even in the films mentioned in the article he played minor and unnamed characters.Mdtemp (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even find sources that suggests subject meet WP:BASIC. Sam ^Sing! 10:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:12, 21 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) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The HardCore Gym[edit]

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

No evidence that this gym meets any WP notability criteria. The only source listed is to the gym's own website.Mdtemp (talk) 22:05, 13 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 23:54, 13 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 23:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG since the article's only source is a link to the gym's website. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:10, 21 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) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jin-Song Chung[edit]

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

The article's only reference gives me a 404 error. There is no significant independent coverage and nothing to show he meets any of the martial arts criteria at WP:MANOTE. Notability is not gained through rank.Mdtemp (talk) 22:00, 13 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 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:55, 13 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 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no accessible sources and there's no indication of anything that would show he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:10, 21 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) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage Man Day[edit]

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

On first look, there's lots of sources out there. But digging deeper, I find they're all tied to the promoters of this "holiday" (Arwood and Rumpke) or dozens of copies of the same press release (example). NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-created day by someone involved in the industry (sadly, not a salute to the poor soul shouting shot in Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 by the "Garbage Day!" guy, as I thought this nom would be about). Nate • (chatter) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious self promotion. Someone is also spamming a bunch of talk pages with large excerpts from the GMD blog. Gamaliel (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:09, 21 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) 08:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

José Basora[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable boxer with the only reference being a link to his fight record. He had a lot of fights, but nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 21:53, 13 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 23:56, 13 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 23:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't meet WP:GNG since there is no significant independent coverage and there's nothing in his boxing record to show he meets WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:08, 21 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) 13:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modified Dietz method[edit]

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

No indication of notability of this method, as only source is from the namesake of the method. Wiki pages that link to this page are simply from "See other" sections. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A curosry google books search shows that this is a standard method for calculating the value of a portfolio. I just added a couple refererced expansions of the header (from said books) and it appears other recent modifications have been made to improve refererces from external sources. —Noah (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added "the value of a portfolio... and a very notable forumla within the financial realm." —Noah (talk) 22:51, 13 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 23:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. His 1966 book describing the method is called "seminal" in secondary sources, and the method itself or modifications thereof has been and is in widespread use. -- Sam ^Sing! 23:31, 20 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) 08:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham (boxing trainer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 21:46, 13 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 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:58, 13 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 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG since the article's only source gives me a 404 error. Even if it didn't, winning a regional boxing award would not be enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:08, 21 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) 08:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zuar Antia[edit]

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

BLP with no independent sources. Nothing shows he was a notable boxer and being a technical coach (as compared to the head coach) of the Irish boxing team is not automatic grounds for notability.Mdtemp (talk) 21:40, 13 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 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and there's no evidence he meets WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:07, 21 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solihull Rifle and Pistol Club[edit]

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

Obscure local gun club. Fails any semblance of WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP. The Dissident Aggressor 21:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:01, 14 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 00:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Fails GNG/CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 08:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:06, 21 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) 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Tocha[edit]

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

BLP with no independent sources. He has no significant coverage and nothing to show that he was a notable kickboxer or martial artist. There's also nothing to show he was notable for his acting roles so he fails WP:GNG, WP:KICK, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NACTOR. Mdtemp (talk) 21:28, 13 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 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources so he doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's also no evidence to support any claims he meets the notability criteria for actors, kickboxers, or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:06, 21 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 and redirect to Miss USA 2015. It would appear that the other articles are currently at AfD here, so for the moment I am only deleting the Scheu article. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Scheu[edit]

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

I stumbled into this while patrolling new pages.

Example article - there are about 50 of these non-notable state level pageant winner one or two liners linked from Miss USA 2015. I propose that all 50 similar articles be deleted for they are:

purely promotional
about persons only notable for one event
poorly sourced
created by a sock army evidently run by the pageant company as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas
Really an SEO effort to build Wikipedia links to MissUSA/MissUniverse and related websites as they have a definite varied pattern of links using a variety of anchor text, bare URLs and various pages on these websites.

This may well be various individuals in the direct or indirect employ of the pageant co. Comments on this talk page are VERY revealing under Your edits he says: I will hand off this project to Vanbros.com who are agents for Alexis (one of the subjects). They initially set this up. I was just trying to assist with adding the information. I hope Vanbros.com knows what they are doing.

Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 13 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 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Given the activity of Mrdhimas's gang, I personally think everything they created should be thrown out and if genuinely notable, should be legitimately recreated in their own time. Mabalu (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect for the same reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Guthrie — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Most were created by a sock/SPA who appeared to be affiliated with these pagent contests, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable outside of one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:12, 23 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Rodriguez[edit]

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

Even with its impact, I'd still consider this a BLP1E; the subject can be covered in more relevant locations ViperSnake151 Talk 19:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~or Merge/redirect to MDMA#Adverse effects.~~ This article details several cases (not just Sasha Rodriguez) of people reportedly dying from a combination of MDMA and water intake. There is nothing about that possibility at the MDMA article; it should be there to the extent it can be verified. The sources now in this article are probably not enough for verification, and if better sources are not found, the article should be deleted. ~~If the result is merge/redirect, I will undertake the merge.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A preliminary look at Google Scholar suggests that reliable sources can be found. For an article like MDMA the sources must comply with WP:MEDRS. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per some discussion at Talk:MDMA: if something is to be added to that article, it would have to be researched and sourced de novo. There is nothing in the current article that could contribute to that addition. The subject herself does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, so the article should be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability beyond a single event. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:00, 21 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Prototype (film)[edit]

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

per WP:CRYSTAL; it's current status is "announced" LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF]. Recreate if/when something more concrete happens. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Association of Journalists[edit]

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

The article lacks notability. It does not have sources in English that confirm its relevance, apart from its own website. The article doesn't even have a Wikipedia article in its native language. Retrohead (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article bears little relation to the actual topic. The name is actually Association of Journalists of Macedonia, and everything I can find says it was founded in the 40s not 2002. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JTdale, you're talking about ЗНМ (Macedonian: Здружение на Новинари на Македонија; eng: Association of Journalists of Macedonia), formed 2 August 1944, when the state was officially formed. This article is about МАН (mac: Македонска Асоцијација на Новинари; eng. Macedonian Association of Journalists) formed 2002, a minor non-professional organization that is not the official representative of the Macedonian journalists.--Retrohead (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then - Makes sense. Not sure this organisation even still exists in that case. Official website is gone. JT_dale^Talk~ 01:41, 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 keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League records (team)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats book, and much of this information is already contained in other articles in the Category:National Football League records and achievements. Primefac (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Core information for one of the USA's major sports. Compare List of NHL records (team), List of Major League Baseball record holders, NBA regular season records. Cbl62 (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Cbl62 says, such a list of records is core information in the coverage of any notable sport, and not the sort of thing to which WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is addressed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable list, passes multiple notability measures including WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 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. Rescinding the AfD; valid points were made regarding the acceptability of the article (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Football League records (individual)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a stats book, and much of this information is already contained in other articles in the Category:National Football League records and achievements. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep' Core information for one of the USA's major sports. Compare List of NHL records (individual), List of Major League Baseball record holders, NBA regular season records, List of NCAA football records. Cbl62 (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record (and the reason why I put this for AfD, this page is ten times as long as the NHL and MLB pages, and 3-5 times as long as the NBA/NCAA pages. It doesn't need to be that massive. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response "too much information" is not a reason to delete. It may be a reason to edit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the quantity of information, it's the fact that the majority can be found on other lists of stats. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete a page either. If you want to edit the content and remove what you believe to be duplicate, go ahead (I suggest discussing it on the article's talk page first).--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Cbl62 says, such a list of records is core information in the coverage of any notable sport, and not the sort of thing to which WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is addressed. Length would be a reason to create spinout articles, not to delete this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable list, passes multiple notability measures including WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 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 speedy delete. Hoax. postdlf (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando TV[edit]

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

Poorly written article about a nonexistent TV channel. Also, article does not cite any sources. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

List of programs broadcast by Orlando TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Speedy delete: I could find nothing other than generic articles about television stations in Orlando that say anything about a TV channel or network with this name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some of the details in the article particularly the sat channels listed - they go to other networks. This article is a hoax. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Geraldo Perez. This article appears to be at best WP:CRYSTAL (since the purported start date hasn't arrived yet and no sources establish notability), or otherwise a hoax. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah...a channel created by Viacom with absolutely no marketing or actual carriage whatsoever and just happens to steal the channel positions of networks already in contract on other providers? And of course the usual impossible 'Nick Turner and Disney shows existing together' nonsense? Along with the editor in Zlgiancarlo (talk · contribs) who has had three blocks for a raft of hoax articles, I would support a speedy deletion and a permanent vacation for this constant hoaxer; they are WP:NOTHERE. Nate • (chatter) 08:48, 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 delete all --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Panama 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, San Salvador
Embassy of Colombia, Port of Spain LibStar (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquize) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 14:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can discuss whether embassies are inherently notable or whether they are notable without exception (but their notability needs to be proved). There will be more than enough coverage on either of these embassies. It's all about someone looking it up. In the meantime, this is a perfectly valid stub missing third party coverage but reliably covered by the Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Deletion is only adequate if the subject is of questionable notability. In the contrary, more of these starters would be fine to close our gaps in coverage. --PanchoS (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is the significant third party coverage? If there are sources provide them, otherwise WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Many embassy stubs have been deleted which is perfectly valid under deletion processes. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Colombian ministry of foreign affairs is a primary source and can't be used to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates of listings already at List of diplomatic missions of Colombia and redirects there would be pointless. Embassies and diplomatic missions are not inherently notable and must each meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH in their own right. Can't see that these do. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:57, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Stalwart, it fails general notability and also duplicates an existing article. SamuelDay1 (talk) 13:42, 20 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) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Troeller[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No independent sources that actually mention Troeller. (The independent sources given refer to Paul Fernandez, the director of one of Troeller's films.) No independent sources can be found. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, given that some of his films have not yet been released. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article passes WP:GNG in my opinion, he is listed in the "thanks to" section by a prominent photographer in a published and successful book out of a famous series.
Anderson, Susan (Mar 25, 2014). Hands On: A MANual for Getting the Job Done. Running Press. p. 124-125. Retrieved 14 January 2015.

--User:AvatarSmit

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC):Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article should be speedied. Clearly autobiographical of a non-notable actor. Is there anything he isn't? If being in an acknowledgement section is all he has this is just poor.Peter Rehse (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy delete per G11 (promotional tripe). The "sources" are laughably bad. At the very best, WP:TOOSOON. If the film We Will Part gets released, maybe he'll astonish us all with his acting prowess. Maybe I'll win the lottery. (Article seems a bit undercategorized.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @AvatarSmit: A single mention in the "thanks to" section is hardly the in-depth coverage of a subject we rely on here at Wikipedia in order to create verifiable articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear and obvious delete. Best known for films that haven't been released? heh heh. Passes gng by being listed in a "thanks to" section? heh heh. funny. Overly promotional, abysmally sourced. A search found nothing usable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:31, 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 speedy delete. Obvious hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monsterhotel[edit]

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

Prodded for having no sources beyond a very sparse IMDB entry, no mention on the Lionsgate site and apparently nothing anywhere else online. Seems likely to be a WP:HOAX, a prod supporter suggesting it reads "exactly like the plot of Hotel Transylvania". Article was unprodded by the original creator, addressing none of this. McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a likely WP:HOAX, or at the very least, as WP:TOOSOON. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Allsop[edit]

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

PROD declined by article's creator. Doesn't meet GNG at the moment due to lack of significant sources: we have a name-drop in an alumni magazine and a social media profile. We're going to need more than that if this is to be kept. p b p 15:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. No RS found in a quick search. ƬheStrike Σagle 16:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society (video game)[edit]

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

It seems that this article does not meet the notability requirements. This game was said to be in development in 2011, but apparently has not been released (yet). Fred Johansen (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~Doesn't meet notability guidelines;~~ unable to locate any reliable sources talking about this topic. Obviously didn't look hard enough initially. Was able to locate reliable sources talking about it. APerson (talk!) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC); edited 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm unsure of the stances above are due to confusion on notability criteria, or a failure of WP:BEFORE, but there is definitely significant coverage from multiple, third party, reliable sources on the subject, which is what the WP:GNG requires. Below are sources that cover it in detail, and have a consensus for being reliable by WikiProject Video Games at WP:VG/S:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/society-e3-2005-impressions/1100-6126078/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/stardock-announces-society/1100-6125372/
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/society/614757p1.html
http://www.ign.com/articles/2005/05/20/e3-2005-society-first-look

Being in development hell or being cancelled is not a valid criteria for deletion, so I really don't follow any deletion stances... Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stardock#History. This situation is analogous to Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films - Society has not exited pre-production, and at this point it's not reasonable to assume that it will. The 2011 post said that Stardock now had the technology to create it; in three years, they haven't. However, we should keep referenced information. GreenReaper (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - I've rewritten the article out of stub status, with a bunch of reliable sources. There's a lot of info out there. This is much more comparable to StarCraft: Ghost (a Featured Article), than say, Austin Powers 4. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GameSpy and IGN are both reliable sources according to WP:VG/RS, and the first of the two GameSpot references is written by the staff, so it's also fine. Not a lot there, but still enough to have its own article. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage and passes notability requirements. Ethically^Yours! 12:35, 20 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 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Queer parenting in Canada[edit]

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

As written, this isn't really an encyclopedia article — rather, it's planted somewhere along the road between an essay and a how-to guide to locating government services and support resources. (One of the things I've already stripped from the article was a directory of offsite links to "resource" organizations.) I hasten to point out that this isn't a homophobia thing — I'm rather well known around here as an openly gay man, and I actually maintain an internal project for improvement of Canadian LGBT coverage. But we already have a general article about LGBT parenting, and the "how-to" stuff (which is, per longstanding policy, not what Wikipedia is for) is the only thing that's really distinguishing this Canadian version from the main one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, I don't quite understand why this article pertains only to Canada. Is Canada special when it comes to LGBT people? JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this is a notable topic. In response to the question, "Is Canada special when it comes to LGBT people?" I would say yes, each country has its own laws and cultural norms that affect LGBT parents differently. It would be impossible to discuss country-specifics within LGBT parenting so it makes sense to spin it off into other articles. There are problems with the tone and content of the article but this should be improved per WP:Deletion is not cleanup. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename LGBT parenting in Canada ~~Merge, maybe~~ - the standard convention is for a Homosexuality in Canada article which doesn't exist yet. Bizarrely, we have the split, LGBT history in Canada but not the "parent" article (no pun intended). These sorts of issues are usually dealt with there. The lack of an article at that title probably encouraged the creation of this one. That said, it may well be that this content there would create a WP:WEIGHT issue anyway. There's a notable topic in there somewhere but I don't think this is the right title (basically). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename LGBT parenting in Canada and keep. We have Same-sex marriage in Canada and dozens of similar articles. while adoption/parenting laws are as much of a hot button topic, there is certainly enough public debate\policies\laws\organization\etc. on the issue in many countries to warrant country specific articles. That appears to be the case in Canada. The title should conform to the standard established by the main article (LGBT parenting). The tone issues (it does read like an essay) and such can be fixed through normal editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good solution. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with renaming it. I've gone ahead and renamed it LGBT parenting in Canada per WP:BOLD. The content still needs plenty of work. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 23:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the topic is notable, but the article is basically a how-to (you can tell because of the detailed information it provides on things that would be relevant to LGBT couples seeking to have children in the real world, but that aren't part of the topic of LGBT parenting, like how in-vitro works). Salvage links/sources for the laws specifically related to LGBT parenting to LGBT in Canada and nuke the rest - delete. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at the newer title above and cleanup per the rename arguments above. I don't agree that all the content is entirely HOWTO, and there appear to be sources which would evidence notability of the topic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per ThaddeusB. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays/how-to guides such as this one. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:28, 13 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 12:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic, good amount of secondary source coverage over time. — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially nothing in the article is about Canada , except the cost of assisted reproduction in Candian dollars; everything else is well covered elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamanaval[edit]

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

Show has not yet aired, current article is little more than an advertisement. Recommend redirecting to Sun TV (India) until significant coverage is produced. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 13 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 11:51, 13 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 11:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to Priyamanaval. ansh666 22:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sun TV (India) - Nominator could have made a bold redirect to target, if undid, nominated it for deletion then. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and lacks reliable sources.Not even a single episode has been telecast right when I type.Further the name was earlier Marumaghala Maghala? now Priyamanaval.ரவி (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further every program in a channel is not notable and it is too early to predict about this serial and hence delete.ரவி (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find any reference to establish notability of this TV show the 4 external links do not even mention this program and ref is a youtube serial link.Now there are thousands of TV shows now this serial has had no coverage and has barely started hence feel it should be deleted rather than redirected at this point .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 21 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) 13:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kifayat Rodani[edit]

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

No attempt to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources to prove he meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The awards listed are just nominations and are not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:04, 13 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 11:19, 13 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 11:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:12, 21 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 Miss North Dakota USA. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Ketterling[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Can't seem to speedy this for some reason Legacypac (talk) 09:46, 13 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 09:58, 13 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 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. Winning a state beauty pageant is a claim of notability, just not a strong one. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Mabalu (talk) 17:30, 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 Miss World 2014#Contestants. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Cartwright[edit]

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

This was created by a sock puppet who created a ton of similar articles. Is this person notable enough? All based on a single source, the pageant itself Legacypac (talk) 09:28, 13 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 09:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World 2014#Contestants. Not notable enough for her own article, especially since she didn't get past the initial stage of competition there. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clarityfiend. Mabalu (talk) 17:31, 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) ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Esperanza Marquez High School[edit]

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

High schools are generally not covered on Wikipedia (see WP:NSCHOOL) and I can't see this one being any different. I say redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District as is customary, but I'd like to get a more comment on it. Thoughts? ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, tertiary degree-awarding institutions and senior secondary schools are considered notable. 'Senior secondary schools' exclude middle schools and schools that do not educate to at least grade 9/age 15. They include high schools in the US and grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Australia, Hong Kong, and the UK, for example." - WP:SCH--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that's a failed proposal right... --ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:52, 13 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 09:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The premise of the nomination is wrong. This is a verified public high school, and articles about such schools are uniformly kept. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and any number of AfDs keeping articles about high schools. In addition, this one demonstrably passes WP:GNG with multiple coverage about the school [3][4]and about its architecturally notable design. [5][6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Nominator's premise ("High schools are generally not covered on Wikipedia...I say redirect to Los Angeles Unified School District as is customary") is utterly and completely wrong, as a quick glance at Category:Los Angeles Unified School District schools would have shown him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:30, 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. Advertising —Tom Morris (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus & the power of go book[edit]

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

A five-page book that's uncovered in significant reliable sources and self-published isn't significant enough to constitute an article on this encyclopedia. ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: No space for spam articles on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- effectivly an advert for a tract by a NN author. When he has published the whole of the projected 100 tracts, and probably collected them into a book, I might reconsider having an article on the whole set. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Huttenbach[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 13 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 07:24, 13 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 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Huttenbach's military career, as known, may be unremarkable, but someone thought he was worth a DSO (and an Italian award). The DSO is a 2nd level gallantry award, which I read elsewhere is a qualification for "notability". Folks at 137 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, one requires two second-level awards for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please advise where that requirement is documented. Folks at 137 (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try WP:SOLDIER, which while not official is the standard guideline used by those of us who edit such articles. Many, many thousands of DSOs have been awarded. We certainly will never consider all recipients notable. Where did you see that we did? -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "DSO OBE MC" is a pretty good medal grouping. Even if you want to argue that none of these medals by itself merits inclusion (and this may be in doubt with regard to the DSO), you cannot argue that the grouping as a whole, with wartime service, is unnotable, given that notability is largely additive. WP:SOLDIER is very narrow anyway. Le petit fromage (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing SOLDIER. Notability is not "largely additive". Appears to have had a distinguished, but "unremarkable" career. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources so regardless of what appears to be a commendable career he isn't notable. Anotherclown (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing the significant coverage per GNG to merit an article at the moment. The major source is the Life Story on IWM website which looks to have assembled (by a relative going by the name) out of fragments in other works. One of these fragments: "Then he went to Gallipoli, a captain of a RHA battery and received an MC for an action that not only involved controlling the fire of a whole Divisional artillery but of two warships as well." by Rex Niven might lead to something. I note also article appears to be an orphan with no incoming links which ought to be addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:43, 21 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 Versus the World (Versus the World album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me (Versus the World)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. No reliable sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:43, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Versus the World (Versus the World album). The only notability I see is that this song was featured in WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007. Redirecting to the album would be the best thing to do. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:03, 20 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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Hilton-Barber[edit]

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

Insufficient reliable sources; notability not established. —Swpb^talk 17:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Hmmmm.... At first glance this guy has a number of stories in mainstream national new sources covering his "feats". Coverage seems more than significant enough to justify a stub. NickCT (talk) 21:34, 6 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 05:10, 7 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 05:10, 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, Mz7 (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. See also WP:BEFORE section D, and WP:NRVE, which states "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prapancham Ravindran[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Creator removed speedy delete tag 3 times. War wizard90 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator This should have been speedy, but nominated for AfD to avoid 3RR. War wizard90 (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Medder[edit]

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

Non-notable former college and minor league pro football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines for either college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or pro football players per WP:NGRIDIRON (never appeared in a regular season NFL or CFL game). Subject did play one or more UFL games, but the former UFL is treated as a minor pro league and does not result in a presumption of notability. Also does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 5 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 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ according to this page, he has played in regular season CFL games from 2009 through 2014 and has recorded a total of six tackles through that time period. Not much play time granted, but surpasses standards set at WP:NGRIDIRON and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: You linked to the CFL profile for Simeon Rottier, not Carlton Medder. As I said above, Carlton Medder -- the subject of this AfD -- never played a down in a regular season CFL game, and no official CFL.ca player profile exists for him (see CFL.ca search here). Justsportsstats.com has a profile for Medder with UFL stats, but no CFL stats or history (see single-season UFL profile here); CFLapedia.com has no profile for Medder (see here). Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand (actually I sit) corrected.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pretty sure he never played either. Also, just for future reference you won't find any stats for offensive linemen on cfl.ca. The only stats they would ever record are games played and those aren't listed there. They would have a profile though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WO-9, for recent CFL players, CFL.ca does list the games played for offensive lineman, even if their game stats are obviously incomplete. See the Simeon Rottier profile link above, and click on the year/season hyperlinks on the first page for the lists of games played. CFL.ca is even worse for historical players than NFL.com is, and most historical CFL player profiles are non-existent. For signees in the last 6 or 7 years, however, CFL.ca did create a player profile at the time of their signing. For guys like Medder who signed, but never played, you can use the Wayback Machine to view their profile as they existed at the time. CFL.ca eventually deletes profiles for players who never played in a regular season game. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cfl.ca actually deletes any profile pages. The pages that get deleted are the players profiles at the team websites. For example Ronald Hilaire was drafted and released before the start of the 2009 season. Offensive lineman Brad Erdos played in some games in 2014 and there are no stats on his page. Medder doesn't have a page because he was never on the active roster during the regular season and did not get drafted. [13][14] Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 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 05:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNOPPOSED -- there is no reason to relist. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:19, 22 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. Both article and the one it duplicates moved/redirected to Indiana High School Boy's Basketball Tournament. (non-admin closure) ansh666 06:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana High School Men's Basketball Tournament[edit]

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

Duplicates the more developed article, IHSAA Men's Basketball Championship. This one or the other should be deleted, depending on which name is preferable. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:IHSAA Men's Basketball Championship about potentially changing the name of the article entirely. Both the above pages may then be retained as redirects (?). Apologies if I have jumped the gun. Please contribute to the conversation. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Luxe Real Estate LLC[edit]

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

Only non-primary source is a link to a non-existent article. Tagged with notability issue since '11. A search turns up nothing that constitutes significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 05:24, 13 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 06:03, 13 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 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Promotional article of non-notable company --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indeed seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. No substantial reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:36, 21 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 and redirect to Gawker Media. The sources listed by The lorax are really only minimal and in-passing, not meeting WP:GNG. I am creating a redirect to Gawker Media as suggested by Masem. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Read[edit]

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

Max Read JUST doesn't meet notability requirements, Being the editor in chief of a news company does not meet notability requirements. RetΔrtist (разговор) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy as attack page. Hipocrite (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we reading the same article here? I dont understand how you could possibly construe this as an attack page, all the information in it is completely innocuous. Bosstopher (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because Gawker attacked Read as one of the "The 50 Least Important Writers of 2012". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the article takes a joke article as fact to try to defame a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Max Read should definitely sue the editor-in-chief of the site for failing to remove such defamatory content. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Publishing a joke article is very different than taking that joke article as fact to besmirch someone's reputation - I haven't checked, but will now - I doubt we mention that article anywhere else. Hipocrite (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        In hindsight, I probably should've added a quote highlighting the quality of the article. (I assumed the joke was known to the reader since why would a blog deprecate one of their staff writers?) I mean no ill will to Max at all as they've proved nothing but amiable in online conversations I've had.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd argue that the coverage from various reliable third-party references justify Read's notability. Given the size of the article, it is a stub worth expanding.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - shifted and hidden that Internet slang sentence to the Gawker article and how many sources are left? Ah, five. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:37, 7 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 09:37, 6 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 09:37, 6 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 09:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the projects threshold for notability. The references are casual name-drops in a story about another editor, snippets of twitter feeds and the like. We require in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources of the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gawker Media. Name is a searchable term, but the person fails GNG and/or BIO. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Masem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Masem. Ries42 (talk) 20:11, 7 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, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible canvassing in /r/KotakuInAction on Reddit: Max Read article is being deleted on wikipedia.--DrWho42 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the user directed people to not vote or participate --RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Reddit user xxXRetardistXxx is not you then?--DrWho42 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWho42 careful that you don't WP:OUTING anyone who has not admitted on WIkipedia to any off-site account. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint ah, okay! I've omitted their the link then.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, DoctorWho42: WP:OUTING doesn't mention linking to offsite accounts, just personal information (real name etc). What am I missing here? ekips 39 23:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He's the editor-in-chief of one of the most highly trafficked websites in the United States and has been featured in multiple reliable sources.The lorax (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By what metric do you measure "most highly trafficked websites in the United States", and can you also provide an example of a source where the subject is "featured" ? Tarc (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being ranked 118 in the US according to Alexa.com would seem to quantify Gawker as being one of the most highly trafficked websites. Read also has been featured in the New York Observer, Time, Columbia Journalism Review, Daily Caller etc... The lorax (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Evidently notable per WP:NOTABILITY for journalists. Royal Mate1 00:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, that would be an argument that the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST? Could you expand upon which of the 4 criteria you feel the subject meets? Tarc (talk) 01:29, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:18, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United International University[edit]

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

Article about a relatively recently established private educational establishment, but with no independent reliable sources. There are plenty of brief press mentions, based on conferences being hosted at the university (a nice little earner), but nothing substantial about the university itself. The one redeeming feature may be its claim to be approved by the Bangladesh government. But it's not even listed, for example on the Ranking Web of Bangladesh Universities. Do we keep private education establishments based on the word 'university' in the name? It would be useful to clear this up. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. According to WP:UNIGUIDE "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia". Webometrics is not a substantial source. UGC is the authority here. Though relatively a new one, UIU is a prominent university in Bangladesh, and in last 12 years it has been providing quality education and also doing substantial research. – nafSadh did say 05:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though that is not a Wikipedia policy, but a guide. Most universities aren't private organisations, so my question is whether this one is an exception.Sionk (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, in some countries (including the United States) most universities are private institutions! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a note (for Sionk), universities in Bangladesh are autonomous and monitored by UGC. About half of them are state-funded, known as public and rest of the half are private. Each public university is established by the government through a legislative process; tuition in those universities are minimal (essentially acts as token money) and heavily funded by the government. In contrast, private bodies can establish universities which are regulated by a private universities act, self-financed and run by a board of trustees (initially created by the "investors"). Tuition in private universities are much higher as tuition and other fees collected from students is the only source of finance for these universities. Private and public universities in Bangladesh are analogous to private and state universities in the US. Though private universities in US attract a lot of donations and research funds, such help is non-existent in Bangladesh. – nafSadh did say 10:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Nafsadh, the university is affiliated with UGC, [15]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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 05:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree awarding institution. Decent coverage per google too. ƬheStrike Σagle 09:08, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saskatchewan Rugby Union[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) 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — You are trying to delete five articles here, and trying to delete additional rugby articles on another AfD. You really ought to raise the issue at the WP:RU talk page, and see if you can gain consensus on the standards that this WikiProject ought to apply regarding the notability of regional and local governing bodies. Barryjjoyce (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used all the current criteria within WP:GNG, WP:NRU and Rugby Projects notability. Each of these articles listed above consist of a rewording of the title and an external link, they hold no encyclopedic value. If the project wishes to begin work on a consensus for notability they are free to do so. In any of the AFDs so far the only argument for keeping them is a sense of WP:Inherited. I have tried to maintain a regional separation between the AFDs except for this one because they all fall under the same umbrella mention previously. I still have to go through the British Columbia Rugby Union, the primary union page has some references which is a huge step up from any other Canadian union page so far, however the sub-unions and individual clubs probably do not warrant their own articles. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:23, 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 16:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It seems that the project was notified of these AfDs by a bot after January 1, although some members had noticed a few of them earlier. I agree that this was not the most consensus-oriented way to go about a mass deletion. As far as I can tell, the project's notability guidelines apply to professional rugby. That doesn't mean that the governing bodies of province-level amateur rugby are not notable. Presumably they were thought to be notable when they were included in the navbar that appears under every Canadian rugby article. If these articles are deleted and then the project tries to get them back, the result will be a lot of churn that could have been avoided by discussing it first on the project talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please note also that although professionalism does exist in rugby union, it is a recent introduction, not actually very widespread and not the sole criterion for notability in the sport. Rugby union has traditionally been amateur, and in certain notable rugby playing nations such as Canada and Argentina this is still the case. Vancouver Rugby Union qualifies in this regard. -MacRùsgail (talk) 14:01, 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 05:09, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2014[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Google gives just 39,200 hits, what boils down to a mere 62 unique hits, including related websites and Wikipedia. Most given sources are also related and not independent as required by WP:RS. The Banner talk 14:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 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 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure This is one in a series of annual events, the others of which have Wikipedia articles and are presumed to meet notability criteria. See Template:Manhunt International. This event is upcoming, so there is a grey area about WP:CRYSTAL, but with ~10 other articles from previous years being covered, it seems likely that this one will have an article too. This could be merged into the main article. Also, this event seems to happen primarily outside of the English language, so there could be non-English sources covering this but which have been difficult to check on English Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 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. Sandstein 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ur (programming language)[edit]

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

non notable programming language Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This programming language is notable because it represents a productivity improvement (generates from a single program the server code, client code, AJAX interoperation as a single function call, and typed sql access), and an integration quality enhancer vs actual solutions. Check some reviews here:

* Phys.org

* ComputerWorld

* MIT (more technical).

And it works. Other web integration languages, the Links (programming language) is nor as ready, neither as powerful, as Ur, and is also in the wikipedia Griba2010 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The 3rd link is not a sign of notability. The first two both indicate that this is a paper that hasn't even been released yet. The phys.org one says "Provided by MIT", so is not independent of the subject and does not count towards notability. There is no sign of anyone ever programming in this language or gaining any traction outside these essentially press releases.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this page lists some production applications that use the language, including the moderately popular BazQux Reader. Not to mention the hundreds of results found in github search alone. --Waldir ^talk 19:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews from

* pcadvisor.co.uk

* SDTimes.com

* BostInno

* EzYang.com - How Ur/Web records work and what it might mean for Haskell

* heise.de

* innovacion.ticbeat.com

Griba2010 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an article on the syntax of a programming language is not really encyclopedic. If someone could find and add information about the language's use, relevance in academia, or really anything other than its syntax, it might be notable. Piboy51 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article could certainly be improved in the ways you describe, notability should ideally be analyzed based on the sources available - not the current state of the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The bar for programming languages is pretty low. Usually all that's required is to show it is used by someone other than the creators. From the comments in this AfD we now know about BazQux Reader, plus some intelligent coverage by multiple reliable sources, including the senior editor of SD Times. That's enough for me. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. --Waldir ^talk 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All the coverage seems to pertains to a single news cycle, by the looks of it triggered by a single press release (MIT has a good PR department). There's one real-world application, and in terms of scientific notability, the main publication's 44 citations in five years (on GScholar, which overestimates these numbers) is low. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion of Links (programming language) is precedent for deleting this one as well. The citation scores for scientific articles about that language where a lot higher than for this one. The only difference is a lot of popular press picking up on the promises of Ur. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs provided by Griba2010 above demonstrate notability. ~KvnG 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has a lot of work to be done, but references provided above are enough to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 19 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 (nomination withdrawn). (Non-admin closure) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Le Courrier de Floride[edit]

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

New publication which does not (yet) meet Notability criteria. PROD was contested by the author; see the article's talk page. MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. How search for news coverage about this, while excluding its own news articles which appear in Google news? Seems notable anyhow, based on quality of its articles. If it has not yet been cited enough in other media (that we know about yet), it will be. Better to keep rather than delete and recreate. --do ncr am 21:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The french-speaking inhabitants in Florida are without doubt a lot now, and such creations are linked to. The media is professional, and the journalists have some french journalist cards IDs, what is only given by the union of the professional journalists "CCIJP". + there is not a such creations of newspapers on paper that we should ignore it. --GwendalGauthier (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (Note: User:GwendalGauthier is the editor of the Courrier, the author of this article, and a single-purpose account. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

(Note: GwendalGauthier was invited by MelanieN and by me to vote/comment here, and GG has disclosed their connection to the Courrier (they are a founder), and they have been informed of wp:COI policy. There's nothing wrong with, and it is fact good, that they are participating here. They are a new editor and are not yet familiar with all our rules and policies and guidelines and practices. --do ncr am 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In discussion elsewhere, GG asserted that Le Courrier de Floride is more well known than all the former local french newspapers in the US which are listed in List of French-language newspapers published in the United States, and that there are almost 3 million French-speaking inhabitants in Florida, and that French is now the third language spoken in Florida after English and Spanish, which is all possibly/likely true. Thanks for pointing to that list-article! I agree with MelanieN that the decision to keep a separate article or not should be based on our wp:notability standards which requires documentation. It may be deemed here that the Courrier is not yet clearly well enough supported, but then it would be better to merge and redirect the article to the list of French-language newspapers, where it is mentioned. I "voted" Keep above and still think that's best, but merge and redirect for now would also be reasonable, IMO. --do ncr am 18:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doncram and Gwendal, if you two can rescue this article, I'm all for it. Here are some links that might be of use to you: [16] and [17] And if we can't establish the notability of the paper at this point, a redirect to the list is a good suggestion. That would preserve the article's history, so that it could be expanded back to an article at a later date. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MelanieN. I added some bits from those two sources to the article. It seems very relevant to cover the surprising-to-me size of French-speaking population in Florida now. I guess it's at its highest in the year, now in the midst of winter, with Quebecois snowbirds there. And great that you agree redirecting is better than outright deletion, if the choice is between them. I have been trying to improve List of French-language newspapers published in the United States, have found that several of them in the "current" section seem to be long-defunct, and that Haitian ones seem to be about Haiti not about the U.S. I am quite surprised about New Orleans french-language newspapers seeming to have disappeared long ago. It seems there's been quite a gap, and that Le Courrier de Floride is in fact the largest French-language newspaper in and about the U.S. or its area in the U.S. now. Thanks, --do ncr am 00:24, 13 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 05:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all the improvements to the article, I am going to withdraw this nomination. Nice work - doncram especially! --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Hardware[edit]

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

I am not convinced of notability. All the refs are by a single author. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 21:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 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 13:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Lean startup, and that article should be examined as it was created by SPA editor ("Leanguy") whose username implies a promotional/COI nature to the subject. This article's creator's name is "Arrakech"; add an "M" to the front of that, for "marrakech", and a search + lean in Google reveals more potential SPA/COI issues. On to the article itself: sentences like (to pluck one at random) "Product crowdfunding has been a tremendous support to hardware innovation by providing financial support to creators at a very early stage in the process..." scream boilerplate cut-n-pasted out of an advertizing brochure. Pax 23:26, 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 04:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI issues aside, this article contains little not covered by Lean startup. Piboy51 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some press releases and 2nd hand directories, not really popular yet. SamuelDay1 (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. Lots of references from tech crunch, but only one additional source that doesn't cover the subject with depth. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:13, 21 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 Manic Street Preachers discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine Is Beautiful[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 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 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passing mentions. Shii (tock) 15:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see notability sufficient to keep, I don't see why a redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography would not be preferable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:29, 13 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 04:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to msnic street preachers discography. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support independent notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:10, 21 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 Manic Street Preachers discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six Singles from Generation Terrorists[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) @ 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 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 13:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography. No evdence of notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 13 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 04:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manic street preachers discography. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support independent notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:08, 21 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) 13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tempesto[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per ceradon, appears to fail notability guidelines as well (only mentions are trivial mentions). ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. PamD 13:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ceradon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. APerson (talk!) 00:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability, and WP:CRYSTAL ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:06, 21 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Badruddin (17th Dai)[edit]

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

Primary sources, even those links are not working, does each dawoodi bohra dai deserve a special page? many dai of dawoodi bohra dont have a page , what is special\notable for this to have a page? Summichum (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 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 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Summichum:, I'm honestly not sure here. Not every Dai has a page, but do they deserve them? There must be a rule for this somewhere. Dawoodi Bohras are numerically smaller, similar to some eastern branches of Christianity. Does every pope for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for example, warrant an article? I don't know, I'm honeslty asking here. If we can find some sort of a consistent rule, it might help the decision here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 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 04:58, 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 & redirect to Princeton University. -- KTC (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Information Technology Policy[edit]

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

Notability not established, might as well be a part of the article on Princeton. Ysangkok (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - couldn't easily find out when it was founded, but the date in the article is clearly wrong. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Princeton University - The center exists, but there seems to be little to justify independent notability or a standalone article separate and aprt from the parent. I'm not seeing the sources at the center's website or in a Google search that would meet the notability standard at this time, but there is the potential for future expansion and sourcing. Alansohn (talk) 17:31, 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 04:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." A google search reveals pages on the institute, but only by Princeton itself -- not sources independent of the subject. A google scholar search reveals multiple articles mentioning staff who work at the institute, but no actual coverage of the subject. It seems the topic is not notable. Piboy51 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. As a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient references from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:04, 21 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. I see no consensus to delete Human Resources (Non-Profit). Human Resources (gallery) has already been merged to Human Resources (Non-Profit) and, as it is necessary to preserve the history for attribution of authorship, Human Resources (gallery) is redirected rather than deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human Resources (gallery)[edit]

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

Local gallery/event space lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails notability per WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:08, 13 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 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article was created a month after another article covering the same thing was written. I've merged that content so I'd recommend deleting it or making it a redirect. If an admin wants to do a history merge that'd be fine, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep because of Oiyarbepsy changing the target of this AfD. The subject passes WP:GNG, based on the citations already present. I'll be improving it today. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I added Human Resources (Non-Profit) to this nomination, since all the same reasons for deletion apply. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for Chris's improvements before making my vote, but I will quote what I stated earlier at Talk:Human Resources (gallery): "I would bet that I could find a place similar to this in any city with a population over 100,000, and many smaller cities as well. The question is, what would make someone outside of Los Angeles care about this? That's the question you need to answer" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Place your !vote as you will. I caution you to stick to policy rather than tell me what you think I have to do. Articles don't have to have regional, statewide, nationwide, or global interest. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gallery and Keep non-profit: Procedurally I'm not sure exactly how to handle the addition of the (non-profit) article to the AFD; my original delete nomination of the (gallery) article still stands but it seems to me that Mr. Troutman has improved the (non-profit) article enough for that article to pass WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vrac, that would be that the gallery page should become a redirect to the non-profit page. There are a whole lot of reasons why the gallery page shouldn't be deleted if we keep the non-profit page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the (non-profit) article and convert the (gallery) article to a redirect. Thanks to Chris's improvements to the (non-profit) article, I think we are getting close to consensus that it is a keep. That means that we can't delete the (gallery) article, because content was merged from there in (this edit) and we need to preserve the history. However, I would suggest that the final title of the (non-profit) article be changed, and maybe the title of the redirect also. Nobody is going to type the titles with parentheses, but they will show up in the regular search box as article titles. We should disambiguate the titles further to indicate that they are not a gallery of pictures of people (human resources), or an article about human resource policies at NPOs. It's the name of an art space. So I would suggest something like "Human Resources (art space)" or "Human Resources (non-profit art space)". – Margin1522 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I am not opposed to a redirect. My delete vote/nomination was to get rid of the (gallery) article as it stood; that has been achieved with the redirect/merge to (non-profit). Vrac (talk) 20:44, 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rompivalasa[edit]

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

Page is very problematic with a lot of original research. Deletion may not be the best option, perhaps only the first line should be kept and everything else is deleted. Also, the IPs and other contributors all seem to be the same person who is abusively using multiple accounts and IPs. Further evidence is shown that they all seem to use inaccurate edit summaries claiming that their edits are fixes of typos. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a recognised populated place. If we can verify its mere existence (as has now been done for this village) such articles are normally allowed to remain. "Original research" is unfortunately rife among articles of this type. I think it is tolerated because we would otherwise lose much basic information about a place, and because much of it could (in principle) be verified by visiting the place and seeing for oneself. I would only remove trivia, advertising, non-notable residents and the like: Noyster (talk), 10:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that Wikipedia has decided that all recognised populated places are to be kept, and that will eventually mean millions of villages in India, China and Brazil will have articles of their own, adding at least five million articles, perhaps more.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:43, 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 04:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real place per WP:GEOLAND and accord one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS being a gazetteer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a verifiable and recognized populated place. Original research is a problem, but the article can be reduced to a stub if necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a verifiable and recognized populated place.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep -per WP:GEOLAND. I've further edited the article to remove OR, extra-ordinary claims and copyvio. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Place that can be verified and hence clears WP:GEOLAND. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:35, 20 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. The fundamental split is over whether the information is worth merging into the main article. postdlf (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Changi Airport awards and accolades[edit]

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

This isn't an encyclopaedic topic. It's non-neutral in conception and in execution, and as it stands is purely promotional. Rescuable content (if any) should be merged to Singapore Changi Airport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justlettersandnumbers (talk • contribs)

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 04:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD had been misformatted (the title of the article was not displayed in the AfD). I have re-formatted it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Changi Airport article. Doesn't need a separate article. Oh, and be sure to trim the "garbage" first. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (do not merge): These oodles of awards are travel industry spam. Pax 02:51, 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 04:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's unusual as a Wikipedia topic, but it's supported, and seems to be split out from the corresponding airport article. It's an editing decision when to split out content. By regular editing processes, hopefully with Talk discussion, an editor could, without AFD, edit in the airport article and redirect this. Better not to force the editing by an AFD decision imposed from afar. --do ncr am 00:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable even for the main article, the Skytrax awards have been discussed at project level and deemed not to be particular noteworthy as they are not really independent. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 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 keep. This is a tough one. Some arguments brought forward are without merit: the quality of the nom is not important. Once nominated, we should address the question of notability, whatever the quality of the nom. Also, whether or not an article exists on another wiki is irrelevant either, unless that other article points to some sources that may help us here. That the organization has nothing done of note in the last 200 years is also irrelevant, as notability is not temporary. There are valid arguments for keeping and for deleting the current article. However, it appears that up to and including the period around the French Revolution, sufficient sources can be found (one of them a whole book, although I do not have the expertise to decide whether this is a reliable source). Whether or not the current incarnation of the order merits any mention in the article can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for an IP editor. The rationale is

The article seems to discuss various similarly named organisations which may or may not have existed and which may or may not have any connection to each other. Reyk _YO! 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's creator, seems to be a single purpose account. The user only ever edited that article, and chivalric orders, which they only edited to insert information on the article they created. This makes me think that the article was created by somebody connected to a modern self-styled order who was trying to give their group a veneer of legitimacy by connecting it to (fictional or historic) groups that were also named after St George. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Edited 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This order has a corresponding article in the French WP: fr:Ordre de Saint-Georges de Bourgogne. Unfortunately they can't be linked right now because they belong to different items at Wikidata. The items need to be merged and I don't know how to do that. There is also a discrepancy in the founding dates. The French WP says 1435, not 1390. Also everything from "From the French Revolution..." in the English article is missing in the French version (per nom, possibly because a present-day member wants to take it further). Anyway I think it was real and a valid topic for an article. The present-day connections can be checked separately without deleting the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's so little useful information on the page, and so little indication (unconvincing assertions aside) what, if anything, connects any of these groups other than being named after St George, that even if it were to be kept it looks like a case of WP:BLOWITUP. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Going by the article, this organization (if it actually exists as a contiguous entity, which is doubtful) has done nothing in 200 years, and is less notable than the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes Lodge No. 26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Раціональне анархіст (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 January 2015
Comment – From the French WP article and the sources in the article, I think we can probably say that the description is valid through the French Revolution. Of course, to be sure we'd have to read the books. The situation is murkier after that. Here is a page from www.heraldica.org on "Revived and Recently Created Orders of Chivalry", according to which this order died out in France around 1830, and was revived in the 1920s by a dubious individual in Italy, died out again, was condemned as a "false order" by the Holy See in 1953, and has been revived again more recently. So the first part of this article appears to be OK. We can decide later what to with the second part -- delete it, ask for more references, or handle it as a "bogus order", according to how other such cases have been handled. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The French WP article has existed since 2006. They obviously think it worth having. If the article has some unreliable content, that should have words of scepticism added, or be deleted from the article, or be tagged, as the circumstances may require. Hoiwever there is a core of material on the late medieval/early modern period, whcih shoudl clearly survive AFD. No doubt the conclusions of Margin1522 can be edited into the article (if they are not already there. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the corresponding French article is a reason to keep. The creator of that article's first edit was to an article [someone who was supposedly a member of the "order" as well.] Given that the page on the English wikipedia was also created in 2006, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that both were created as part of a coordinated effort by the group at self-promotion. Particularly since website is available in two languages: French and English. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 00:10, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a matter of policy, the existance of an article on the same subject on the French WP isn't evidence of notability. Which thus leaves us with an article created by a single-purpose account, citing obscure untranslated foreign-language texts, with no inline referencing indicating what comes from where - or indeed whether particular material is actually supported by any of the sources cited at all. My (very limited) French, combined with Google translate [18], suggests that the French WP version is in a similar state - only citing less sources. It does at least begin with an equivocal "Selon certains historiens..." ("According to certain historians..."), which may imply more than it states outright. It is of course entirely possible that this Noble Order is of the historical significance claimed, and that the historical continuity implied is real - but I think we have to conclude that there isn't enough evidence presented for this to be verified without a level of research that is beyond what might be reasonably expected. If anyone wishes to do such research, and to write a new properly-cited version, that will of course be open to them. But for now, I can't see the justification for the present article as an encyclopaedic entry. There are just too many unanswered questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – OK, the fact that a French article exists is not proof of notability. That's a valid policy argument against one reason for keeping it. But the reasons for the rest of the no !votes seem pretty flimsy. For example • WP:UNFAMILIAR. But we have many articles on orders of St. George (see Order of St. George (disambiguation)). That ~~you~~ an editor is unfamiliar with them is not an argument. • That it was created by an SPA. But policy says that's irrelevant (WP:INVOLVE). • That it lacks inline references. But general references are also allowed (WP:GENREF). • That the sources are offline. But according to WP:PAPERONLY that doesn't matter either. "If an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. This will only occur with definitive proof or knowledge that these sources are really fictitious, and not based simply on a hunch." That's because of our basic policy of WP:AGF.

There is one online reference in the article, the Google Books paragraph in the German book, which in general confirms the story through 1715. There is also this book (see also Chapter 8 "Resurrecting a Dead Dodo") and the heraldica.org page that I cited. And our article on Self-styled orders. It seems to be that we plenty of tools for dealing with implicit claims of continuity. Unproven suspicions and lack of interest in medieval history are not valid reasons for deletion. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anyone mention a "lack of interest in medieval history?"79.97.226.247 (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth. But we are discussing deletion of an article on a medieval order. Instead of looks fishy and may or may not have existed, I think we should try to find out whether it did or not. For example, the author of the main book has an article on the French Wikipedia – fr:Éric Thiou. From the bibliography, he looks like a legitimate historian, so that is probably genuine. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Self-promotional OR based on dubious sources. Can't even tell if this group existed or exists in the real world at all, so probably safe in assuming that it doesn't. As the same goes for the article on French WP, it means nothing and adds nothing in terms of notability. It's pure drivel, and can be deleted in it's entirety. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- the only question is whether this bogus order has value to the encyclopedia as an example of a prominent self-styled order. I would suggest we've already got enough articles on more prominent organizations of this type. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – It's going on two weeks now and probably getting close to closing. I'd just like to remark once more that the !votes questioning the order's existence seem rather dubious, given that the article cites an entire book on its history. Look at it this way. If we did have an article on a medieval order, would we delete it in order to prevent a latter-day revival from inserting material about itself? No. But that is essentially what is being proposed here. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As with many other "procedural" deletion nominations, the quality of the nomination is poor. There's no real justification for deletion provided in the nomination, there's no accountability offered by editor Reyk. These types of nominations shouldn't be allowed, IMHO. Keep per Peterkingiron and other discussion. --do ncr am 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find next to no coverage of this topic in English language books, and as there seems no way of verifying the foreign language sources claimed in the article, this leads to believe it doesn't meet the WP:GNG requirements for "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 25 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) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (junyi)[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising, clearly written in a non-neutral perspective. Does not follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and standards Muckysock94 (talk) 03:51, 13 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 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is sourced from subject's own website which appears to no longer exist. Can't find anything else of significance out there under real and stage names, fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 05:14, 13 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 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional. (Representative line: "Only doing things for passion, she took a bold step of faith, exhausted every cent of savings to start what she did".) APerson (talk!) 14:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extent of its promotional tone is too obvious to ignore. Unfortunately, we have no space for promotional articles on Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely promotional, nothing to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:58, 21 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) 13:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav High School, Biratpur[edit]

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

Promotional article, it lacks notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per the article, it holds classes from grade 6 to 10, for which there isn't a consensus per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It does seem to exist, though. ansh666 19:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, keep, then, per Necro and point 1 of WP:INDAFDKI (explaining what 6th to 10th standard means, I think). ansh 666 05:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary school, kept per longstanding consensus and precedent. Actually educates from classes 9 to 12. No idea what the "classes held from 6th to 10th standard" in the article means. But even if it did only educate to 16, that's standard school-leaving age in many countries and it therefore still counts as a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, thanks for writing. Now tell me that how we are going to cite citations, and which ones? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 21 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coby Moscowitz[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE, unscourced bio which would need major cleanup should notability be met. Claiming to to #6 in the world should be notable, given no news about this person it is bordering on hoax. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't appear to be a complete hoax, there talk of state medals in this, but not enough to get by WP:ATHLETE or GNG. Vrac (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not taking a position on his notability but this is certainly not a hoax, see here for example. Just Chilling (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be a hoax, but doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE either, and I'm with Loriendrew, if this person really is ranked 6th in the world, that should be easy to verify, and yet I cannot find any sources that do, only a few mentions on a couple Michigan-specific archery sites, I believe the article is bloated, and there's a good chance of some COI here. War wizard90 (talk) 04:37, 13 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 06:13, 13 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 06:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:13, 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. Clearly this guy is a subject of sustained media interest. Whether he really has made waves in the boxing world, a question raised by several delete votes, is not for us to judge. Shii (tock) 03:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Martin (boxer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6. This article was deleted in a Afd, but a review was requested. The outcome of that review was to relist the article for a fresh AfD. I am listing this as an administrative action only, and offer no opinion on the outcome.-- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Anson Wainwright. "New Faces: Ryan Martin". The Ring (magazine). Archived from the original on 5 January 2015. Retrieved 8 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Why he’s a prospect: Martin had a very impressive amateur background during which he fought over 200 fights, winning 12 national titles to form a very solid base from which to start.
  Martin won the National Junior Golden Gloves title three times (2005-07), the National Silver Gloves (2005) and National Junior Olympics (2006) among other tournaments. He also competed in numerous international duels. His U-19 National title win in 2009 should be viewed as the biggest success of his amateur career. Early in Martin’s amateur career he was tabbed by then middleweight champion of the world Jermain Taylor as one to look out for.
  Taylor dubbed Martin “Kid London.”
2. Butcher, Lucy (2014-02-13). "Frigo and Ryan Martin make perfect pair". SportsPro. Archived from the original on 2015-01-13. Retrieved 2015-01-13.
  The article notes:
  
  US lightweight boxer Ryan ‘Blue Chip’ Martin has signed a two-year endorsement deal with Revolution Wear’s Frigo brand.
  As part of the sponsorship Martin will where Frigo underwear during every weigh-in and fight for the next two years. He will also wear a new uniform designed by Everlast which will feature the Frigo logo for every fight.
  Cleveland-based Martin launched his endorsement of the underwear brand in last night’s match at the Roseland Ballroom in which he defeated Jose Del Valle.
  Martin, a client of Curtis ‘50 Cent’ Jackson’s SMS Promotions, made his professional debut against Darus Somieri on 16th September 2013 in New York.
3. Bush, Ron (2013-09-07). "Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin to begin pro boxing". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The article notes:
  
  After more than 200 amateur fights and 12 national championships under various labels, Chattanooga boxer Ryan Martin has gone pro. And he's hooked up with someone whose very name means coin.
  Martin, most recently a Golden Gloves 132- and 141-pound open participant, is set to make his professional debut in the 135-pound lightweight class on Sept. 16 at the Resorts World Casino in New York City. He has a promotional deal with SMS Promotions, owned by rapper 50 Cent.
4. Wiedmer, Mark (2014-04-18). "Wiedmer: Martin on verge of boxing stardom". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Ryan Martin was pushing a lawnmower around a Hixson front yard last September, trying to put an extra $20 in his pocket, when his cell phone rang.
  "It was [the rapper] 50 Cent and Tim [VanNewhouse]," he said. "They wanted me to box for them full time. I couldn't believe it."
  Assuming "Blue Chip" Martin improves to 5-0 following tonight's lightweight bout against Misael Chacon in Monroeville, Pa., the whole country could believe in him come July 2. That's when ESPN would televise a bout including Martin on its "Wednesday Night Fight" show.
5. Shahen, Paul (2014-05-16). "Chattanooga's Ryan Martin featured in 50 Cent's new music video". WRCB. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The article notes:
  
  Pro boxer Ryan Martin goes from the ring to the big screen in 50 Cent's newest music video. The song is conveniently named "Winners Circle" and it makes sense because since Martin turned pro he's spent a lot of time in the winners circle.
  Martin signed with 50 Cent's boxing label SMS Promotions last year. The former West Side Boxer in Chattanooga is off to a 5-0 pro start with three knockouts.
6. Bush, Ron (2014-11-08). "Central grad Martin goes for 9-0 as pro boxer". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
  The article notes:
  
  From his residence in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, Ryan Martin said it was "awesome" that Central High School was in the state football playoffs and had a winning record this year.
  The Purple Pounders' record is not nearly as impressive as the 21-year-old Central graduate's.
  He's 8-0 as a professional lightweight boxer in less than 14 months of action. He tries this evening to go to 9-0 -- 7-0 in 2014. But Martin, a protege of rapper 50 Cent through SMS Promotions, is fighting his toughest opponent to date in his most prestigious setting.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ryan Martin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Significant coverage is defined in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says:
Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?
A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.
Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria.
Cunard (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified all the participants at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 6#Ryan Martin (boxer) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some possible copyright issues with the article as it is presently written. Boxing Scene article's first lines: "From a young age Martin was highly touted The Ohio resident was dubbed 'Kid London' by Jermain Taylor...", Wikipedia article's first lines (under 'Amateur career' heading): "From a young age Martin was highly touted; he was dubbed the name "Kid London" by famed Jermain Taylor" Shearonink (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put that verbatim text from BoxingScene in quotation marks. I spotchecked several parts of the article and found one other copyright issue, which I fixed. Cunard (talk) 04:07, 13 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 06:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 13 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 06:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Martin seems to be "world famous in Chattanooga" and consequently all coverage is in the Chattanooga Times Free Press or a local radio station. I find this exclusively local coverage insufficient to pass GNG. As it was firmly established in the previous AfD (and DRV) that he does not meet NBOX, there is nothing else left. (Note: I closed the original AfD). --Randykitty (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel there is a problem with "The Ring" as a source? It clearly isn't local and it's exactly the publication one would hope to see a boxer in. Hobit (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The monthly British magazine SportsPro is another non-local source about the subject. Link to the article, which I've added to my list of sources above. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep young but seems to meet #4 Notability Requirement as stated above. As I said the first time In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

except since as was argued first time round, #4 is widely recognised not to include junior competitions. So you are probably going to have to give people a bit more to work with here than a vague wave at a guideline. What is the competition that you think qualifies? Is it junior or senior? Is there any precedent for this? --_nonsense ferret 12:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As neatly summarized by Randykitty. My vote in the original AfD called him a big fish in a small pond - lots of local fuss. He does not meet WP:NBOX with a career mostly as a junior and almost dids. Coverage not sufficient to meet WP:GNG alone.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:N. And concern about local-only sources are met by coverage in "The Ring". Hobit (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning towards Keep. According to The Ring (magazine)'s website, the guy did get the National Junior Golden Gloves title three times (from 2005 to 2007), the National Silver Gloves once and the National Junior Olympics once. I looked at notability guidelines for boxing and don't see any clear delineation against including someone who was a multiple National Junior Champion/Junior Golden Gloves winner. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for boxer to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, ? C.dunkin (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers at WP:NBOX since junior titles (no matter how many you win) have never been considered to show martial arts (including boxing) notability. As for GNG, I've seen hundreds of athletes with lots of local coverage but few of them become notable. The prospect profile in Ring is a start towards meeting the GNG, although being called a prospect means he's not yet achieved notability.Mdtemp (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is a "term of art" on Wikipedia meaning he meets WP:N, which is solely about independent reliable sources. It doesn't mean he's famous or even a good boxer. Heck, if the NYT and Washington Post both wrote detailed articles about how bad of a boxer he was, he'd meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ring Magazine is a looong established magazine-its boxing's equivalent of Tiger Beat, Time Magazine, People Magazine, Elle, Popular Mechanics...you get it, it's a historical magazine that's become arguably part of Americana. Being profiled or having an article there means you are notable. Antonio United States' Benefactor Martin (Tell me whyyy? (like The Beatles' song))11:00 January 14, 2015 (UTC)
Weak Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers. As for meeting GNG, the Ring magazine article is OK but I need to see some additional significant coverage from something other than the local paper. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will gather additional sources other than local coverage for your review. C.dunkin (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails nbox since long established that junior competitions dont carry anything like the same weight as senior. Considering carefully the coverage presented thus far in respect gng, I would have to conclude it is a little bit too soon for this up and coming young boxer, albeit that he is clearly heavily promoted. --_nonsense ferret 21:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he's "clearly heavily promoted" isn't that part of the point we are discussing WP:GNG ? This shouldn’t be a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the many reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Many people from various media outlets/platforms have followed and documented the success/failures and stories of his young lifelong commitment to his sport.C.dunkin (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:N In addition to the many reliable articles mentioned by Cunard I have included some others that have not been mentioned as a source here or at the Ryan Martin (Boxer) page.

"RYAN MARTIN STANDS OUT FROM SEA OF PROSPECTS". fighthype.com. Luis Sandoval. Retrieved 16 January 2015.

The article notes:

There is always a large sea of prospects in boxing, but there are those that stand out and separate themselves from the pack. Lightweight Ryan Martin (10-0, 6Kos) has been doing just that. The Chattanooga, TN native has been making noise in his 16 months as a professional and has been looking very impressive. Martin is currently signed to rapper and businessman 50 Cent's SMS Promotions. Although 2014 saw many fighters sitting on the sidelines waiting for a fight date, Martin was in the ring 8 times in 12 months. He fought on ESPN and major network undercards, including HBO and Showtime. Keeping busy and continuing to learn is top priority for Martin.Like most can't miss prospects, Martin seems to have the full package so far as a young professional. He's very talented, athletic, has fast hands, a precession-like jab and puts his punches together well. Ryan also has a decorated amateur career, which includes over 200 amateur wins and numerous National Championships and international experience.

"50 CENTS SMS PROMOTION SCORES WIN WITH RYAN MARTIN". www.hiphopmyway.com. Lucy Alvarez. Retrieved 9 April 2014.

The article notes:

Ryan Martin may arguably be the promotion’s flagship talent at the moment, with a push for champ in the works. Ryan Martin signed with the promotion in late 2013 and most recently took down Justin Robbins at the Chatman – Brewer fight on March 28th with a stunning second round knockout, bringing his record to 4-0 with three knockouts. An impressive step in a promising career.

"RYAN MARTIN GAINING EXPERIENCE WITH YURIORKIS GAMBOA". boxingtalk.com. Doveed Linder. Retrieved 23 May 2015.

The article notes:

In this interview, lightweight Ryan Martin (5-0, 3 KOs) discusses sparring with Yuriorkis Gamboa, meeting Mike Tyson for the first time, and his plans for the future.

"TALKING BOXING WITH ROSIE PEREZ". athleteoriginals.com. Chris Dey. Retrieved 17 October 2014.

The article notes: Walking through New York City on Wednesday and just happened to meet up with Rosie Perez on 45th & 9th as she was waiting for a cab. Now I had never met Rosie, but I felt like I knew Rosie…at least well enough to say hi. Because we have a common friend in Ryan ‘Blue Chip‘ Martin. Rosie is a big boxing fan and she’s been at a couple of Ryan’s fights since he turned pro last year. Now for those of you who don’t know Ryan yet…he’s special. It’s always fun to draw comparisons to past greats, but perhaps in Ryan’s case it’s best to just let him ‘tell his own story’

,C.dunkin (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear at all that these sources contribute much at all to the case for notability, I have concerns about the significance, independence and reliability of these - one in particular seems to be from a company that is selling merchandise on the boxer's behalf. --_nonsense ferret 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People reading and editing this page can check that this information comes from many non-self published reliable sources. Subject page has no original research and all information is verifiable. There's a plethora of sources from top boxing websites, magazines, newspapers, and other web-like organizations addressing the subject directly and in detail. The one source you question can be used for additional information because the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. However, we know the article is certainly not based primarily on such source. I only mentioned it in this discussion. C.dunkin (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX and I don't think there's quite enough significant independent coverage to meet GNG. Yes he's being heavily promoted, but that's not independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
— General notability guideline

C.dunkin (talk) 02:08, 23 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ralston[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bob Ralston

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

No citations aside from a personal webpage and a directory citation. Afronig (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 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 13:11, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google search show's that he is notable, and was clearly the organist for the Lawrence Welk show for 38 years, I agree that references need to be added, but clearly passes WP:BIO. War wizard90 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on his long service with Lawrence Welk, for which he got surprisingly little coverage; in fact almost everything in the article is unsourced. I wasn't sure what to make of this subject. When I searched for sources, the main thing that cropped up was information about a conviction for child abuse. But the reliable sources had very little information, and the more detailed sources seemed less than solid for that kind of BLP negative info, so I did not add it to the article. On the other hand, that was about the only significant coverage he received, other than the encyclopedic work about TV shows. And since we can't see that entry, we don't know how significant it was. Maybe we should merge this to The Lawrence Welk Show since virtually nothing in the article is verified. --MelanieN (talk) 02:25, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UK Channel Boredom[edit]

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 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 13:18, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioned in a book or two - doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:40, 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 to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Loved You[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG, no significant coverage. No content except track listings/release dates. --Bejnar (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 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 13:19, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. The only notability that I see is that the single was only released in Japan and was a replacement for The Everlasting (song). Redirecting to the album would be best. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:48, 20 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG, as 539k Google hits boil down to a mere 220 hits, including Wikipedia and related websites. The Banner talk 14:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 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 16:39, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:53, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen White (television writer)[edit]

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

Article makes no effort to show notability outside of the linked articles (i.e. Barney & Friends, Barney's Great Adventure) and contains a second paragraph which contained some fairly BLP-violating unsourced text ("His most notable work is Hope'N'Change, a conservative stock image webcomic that is notable for taking pride in how homophobic, sexist, racist and otherwise offensive as it can be.") previous to my removing it, with the latest edit to include that line by IP 220.233.208.206 seeming to indicate that it was added specifically to cause controversy. "The man apparently does not like this information being published, as it is likely that his doing this would lose him work in non-partisan areas. TS to him, then, information wants to be free and he can deal with the consequences of being an ass." Imban (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 21:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:53, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's clearly not notable for his most recent work. But the fact that he was a writer on Barney & Friends would seem to be a verifiable fact. As far as writers of children's television shows go, that's a pretty big deal. A significant contribution to a notable creative work is probably enough for the subject to meet WP:CREATIVE. Without trying to otherstuff it, there's certainly an easier case to make for that than for the many d-grade uncredited actors for whom we have articles. The line highlighted is a clear BLP violation and removing it was appropriate. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:20, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Narayanan[edit]

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

Notability not established Ysangkok (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wired calls him "one of the leading hands-on thinkers in exploring how traditional notions of privacy are radically fractured by the collision of big data and cheap analytics", and his major paper has 600+ cites. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON but I think his citation record (on Google scholar [19]) meets WP:PROF#C1 through multiple highly-cited works. (I am not so much interested in the h-index here, whose moderate value mostly reflects how long he has been working, but rather the seven papers with 100+ cites each.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per SarekOfVulcan and I'm partial to David Eppstein's comments also. Those sorts of accolades from an independent publication are a pretty good indication of notability. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because of the citation record. HalfGig talk 02:50, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Law Journal[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable, and article is written in an OR manner.-- Pax 20:05, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Acknowledged by specialized indexes (all of which have their own Wiki articles) as a reliable journal in this field. That's a good 3 or 4 scholarly sources. Shii (tock) 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the indexes listed in the article, none of these is even remotely selective, so inclusion in these indexes does not contribute anything to notability. If you mean any indexes not listed in the article and, in fact, selective, please clarify. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do find them selective. I would be okay with having an article on each of the journals in this list: http://www.slavicreview.illinois.edu/info/related.html Shii (tock) 00:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long standing consensus in the Academic Journals WikiProject that these services are not selective (nor seems the list that you link to be very selective: apparently it's enough to have a home page to be included). The onus is therefore on you to demonstrate that we are all wrong and that these services are selective. Just saying you think they are really is not sufficient. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote redacted Shii (tock) 00:48, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JYJ Euro tour 2014[edit]

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

This article was up for PROD and, without looking closely enough, I de-PRODded it because I didn't think it was an uncontroversial deletion. The original PRODder didn't state the true problem with the article, just said it had no sources. I thought it just needed some sources checked to see if it was notable and then, if necessary, go through the AFD process with debate and such. But upon looking at the article in more detail, I realized that it is complete nonsense. The tour dates listed coincide with the real JYJ tour dates, but the cities have all been changed from the true locations in Asia. The attendance numbers have obviously been changed too. The source listed is even the long-defunct Melody Maker. This page is a hoax. Sorry for de-PRODding prematurely. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I should have said "no sources found" rather than just "no sources" as requirements for tours are pretty strict. Thanks to Shinyani-i for the additional leg work. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:08, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There aren't even one reliable source. And looking at the tour dates, this is definitely a hoax. For example, "Taipei World Trade Center Nangang Exhibition Hall" is a location in Taiwan or "Quân khu 7 Stadium" is a location in Vietnam, etc., not in Europe.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. --Mikepellerin^talk 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above & nom .–Davey2010^Talk 02:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough per WP:N and WP:NTOUR. Tibbydibby (talk) 06:15, 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, no pejudice against recreation if better sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CHI-CHI[edit]

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

Not notable group that has only released a handful of singles and have since disbanded. Sources are disputed and many rely on Social Media or WP:PRIMARY. Karst (talk) 23:57, 5 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 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable Asdklf; (talk) 18:18, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. WP:MUSICBIO says one single on any country's charts is enough, but the sources for the article are inadequate. The one RS that I could find in Japanese was this one, about an event at a Tower record store. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:20, 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. KTC (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam C. S.[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. PROD removed by creator. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 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 16:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:17, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Gluck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. The sole reference, Roger Ebert's book, just lists his credit in Just Go with It; Ebert's review doesn't mention him at all. P.S. I see that a prior Afd resulted in deletion~~, so this may qualify for speedy deletion~~. He's gotten a few more credits since then (2012), but nothing significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 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 13:11, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 20 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 University of Dhaka. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka University National Model United Nations[edit]

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

Article has the foundation needed for an encyclopedia, but it reads too much like a promotional piece or advertisement. Listing here for community input on the article's fate. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has much like a promotional appearance than an encyclopedic content. I think it should be merged with the article University of Dhaka. Tanweer^talk 16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Dhaka as right now it looks as if it was copied word for word from a website, –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Dhaka by creating a new section maybe. ƬheStrike Σagle 16:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if merged, it should be with Culture and Activities at University of Dhaka. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dhaka_University_Model_United_Nations_Association for a similar topic. – nafSadh did say 18:50, 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.