Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 January 16 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Division[edit]

Soul Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be non-notable band, fails WP:NBAND. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a band just getting started. They have just released one EP. Coverage is not substantial. That may change int he futures, but for now, inclusion criteria are not met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Yup, another case of people getting ahead of themselves. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 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 speedy close. Duplicated AfD. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Nagul[edit]

Vivek Nagul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Coach who has never coached the first team in a Fully professional league of any famous Club neither has got significant coverage. He is just an assistant and there is no credibility to the source claiming his licenses which is mentioned in the article. He may someday become a head coach but as of today does not deserve a wiki article as Wiki is not for promotion- Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. This article was proposed three times for deletion and the PROD, prod2 tag has been repeatedly removed by the creator of the article Currently fails WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Annaprash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the creator of this article. He is a notable coach. He has worked as an assistant to former Italian defender Marco Materazzi at Chennaiyin FC which is a club in the ISL. During Materazzi's absence he coached Chennaiyin FC for around 4 matches. He is currently working as a coach at Tanzanian football club Azam FC playing in the Tanzanian Premier League. Vivek had earlier worked at Pune FC as a coach. Pune FC plays in the I-League. He was offered coach's role at Mohun Bagan which is a top Indian club playing in the I-League but he refused the job citing that his contract with Azam FC ran till 2016. Both I-League & Tanzanian Premier League are officially recognised by FIFA and ISL will soon be recognised by FIFA. Hence he has coached a first team in a Fully professional league. And about his UEFA 'A' and AFC 'A' licenses you can see on his official Twitter account for further details. You can also refer to his official LinkedIn profile for more info on him. Vivek Nagul definitely deserves an article. And yeah this article was proposed for deletion once but I have explained the reason for its non-deletion in the talk page. I stand for this article and it should be there on Wikipedia. It does satisfy WP:NSPORTS, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Richie Gooner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010Talk 01:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Dibitetto[edit]

Vic Dibitetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable youtube comedian. I'm seeing only local coverage and a bunch of non-independent links. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (commune) @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "local coverage" appears to be isolated to the United States east coast, with significant and frequent coverage in New Jersey and New York media. These are newspapers and radio stations with potential audiences of millions. He also appears to have won a national television contest (America's Funniest People). Pburka (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above with the coverage issue. Also, I think the biggest complaint is that the article predicts Vic's success in the future. But we DO know he is going to have a large role in a movie for sure. He also does quite a bit of stand-up comedic work at major resorts in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. His YouTube channel has over 25 million views and tens of thousands of subscribers. I think the nom does not give good enough support to the lack of notability. PrairieKid (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Vic has a significant role in Mall Cop 2. He is seen on the trailers and appears to be a key character alongside Kevin James. This exposes him to millions of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.173.136 (talk) 23:06, 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, KTC (talk) 19:18, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the article doesn't have much information doesn't mean that it lacks notability. As long as there are enough secondary sources, it's worth keeping.--TMD Talk Page. 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Red Bull. Socks/meats notwithstanding, I'm rounding to merge, given consensus is still against outright retention. Consensus at the destination article is obviously free to determine how much, if any, of this article is to be incorporated slakr\ talk / 04:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bull House of Art[edit]

Red Bull House of Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Gallery of low notability. Corruption Watchchihuahua (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is possibly an extension of harassment I've received lately To all users: please check my talk page. I'm leaving this note on your wiki page because the calls for deletion also involve a few (possible) wiki users who have recently harassed me and my name on the Red Bull wiki page itself. When I reported it, several users apologized on my page, including Corruption. The original person who harrassed me was a person named "Ringcluder" who is not actually registered here. I now believe Corruption might be the original troll who bothered me in the first place. I'm not sure but I think it's worth considering. I also think this might be someone I know in real life, but am not sure yet. Thank you for being aware of this. Kgpaints (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a hypothetical scenario: Brach Goodman gets angry about this page, corrects the Cycle 9 information and leaves a message on Ringcluder's talk page threatening to report him to the vandal patrol. Wouldn't Brach Goodman have become the target of Ringcluder's harassment instead of you? Just skimming that page I can list plenty of other targets besides you. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no one's gotten threats aside from me. I'm the only artist where it's gotten to this level. Even if there are other artists being harassed, it's better to bring this to light than to let this whole nomination for deletion look completely innocent. I believe this is someone getting angry that I've hit back, and they're flouncing off. "If I can't have my way, then no one will" sort of thing. Kgpaints (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're the only one to bite the bait so hard. Paula Schubatis is not biting. Brian Lacey is not biting. That's just two. Maybe they don't know about this page. Or maybe they do know but they understand that the best thing for them, the best thing for you, the best thing for the others is for this page to be deleted. At this point in time, you and the others need the narrative to only exist in places where you can exercise better control over it. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. I'll just disregard that. Also, because you're so adamant for the page's deletion and keen to blame me for what's happening, I think you might be another alt. Kgpaints (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dial down the melodrama already. This isn't just about you, but you stand to benefit from this page being deleted. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dial it down yourself. This is an actual problem that's already had consequences away from this page. Being dismissive of that doesn't help anything. You're fine to continue to be rude if you like, but you're only making yourself look foolish. Kgpaints (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I probably don't have a voice in this because I'm one of the artists, it's worth mentioning that the Red Bull House of Art program has been in Brazil and in Lisbon. It's worth at least editing the article to reflect how many cities it's been in to show the scale of it. You're going to end up putting it back on Wiki because from what I've heard, Red Bull is moving this gallery to different cities after Detroit. Kgpaints (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be such a bad thing, deleting this article and putting it back in years later? You don't see real encyclopedias jumping ahead of subjects like this. Look up George W. Bush in a 2001 Encyclopedia Britannica some time. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Gets 101 hits on Google News, including some (like this one) that profile the program itself as well as covering the shows. Currently the article is a list article, and I don't know if we have to list every artist. But the Detroit art scene is well known, so I'd say it has potential (WP:HASPOT). – Margin1522 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge – Changing my !vote as this seems to be nearing a consensus, and I'm OK with that. That is, omit the lists of artists. With multiple shows per year this list would grow rapidly and it would have to be maintained. There is also the issue of whether the shows themselves are notable enough to need detailed listings. I don't think that's required. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment - I did a Google News search. I got a lot of irrelevant results. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Well, yes, of course. Some of them are primarily about other topics. But what we need here are policy reasons. For notability we need coverage from multiple independent sources, which these are. And for verifiability they have to be reliable sources. It seems to me that we have enough. There are many articles about the arts scene in Detroit, e.g. this one from the New York Times. The large number of hits in Google News is due partly to their decision to include freelance reports from Examiner.com. But what that shows is that if you are an aspiring critic or reporter who wants to cover the arts scene in Detroit, then you cover shows at this gallery. Looks to me like one of the more notable arts spaces in the city. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Am I reading you wrong or do you hesitate to accept Examiner.com as a valid news source? What if we ignore those "freelance reports"? What are we left with? Three articles in newspapers, at least two of which were written only because staffers from those papers were selected as resident artists. I don't think this kind of quid pro quo should count like "independent sources" to me. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment – OK, here are a few more sources from the first page of Google results. One from the local CBS TV station [1], one from an arts foundation [2], and one from the local public radio station [3]. Plus the many newspaper stories and freelance reviews. I have no opinion on whether the Detroit Free Press (Detroit's largest newspaper) had ulterior motives that make them an unreliable source, because there's no way to tell. All I can say is that in my opinion the breadth and depth of coverage seems to be more than enough for notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth to the Fourth Power (talk • contribs) 18:04, 17 January 2015
Comment Thanks, but when was "latest" and where are those quotes from? Anyway, the Metro Times has run 28 stories on this space, dating back to 2013. I mean, I get it. The no !votes are claiming WP:COI. But there are 100 stories – surely not all of them are COI? Nor did the nom cite any reason for non-notable (WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE). I think we need more than that. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're from external links currently linked from the article, the ones with the correct author's name and publication titles. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - It's basically a mixture of WP:VANITY and the artists pranking each other and pranking the only reporter dumb enough to cover every single opening since the first one. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only reason the Detroit Free Press did an article on Cycle 8 was because one of the Free Press editors was selected as one of the artists. If the Detroit News ever does an article on this gallery, you'll know the reason why when you look at the roster of artists. Incarnatus (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was paid $120 cash by a lady with green hair to write this article. She didn't give me her name but said she's a friend of Gregory Kohs. Flutedude (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every single source is either unreliable, blacklisted (Examiner.com), a primary source (Metro Times being one example), or local to Detroit or San Diego, as far as I can see. Often a mixture of the three. And a Google search does not change that much. So, we're left with a list of non-notable people, of dubious reliability, about some kind of project run by a non-notable person in a local area that just happens to be sponsored by Red Bull. And Red Bull's sponsorship means nothing; they sponsor pretty much everything under the sun. So, yeah. Doesn't matter how many Google News searches come up, as per WP:GHITS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good points, Luke. Except there isn't even a San Diego source. That's an Anchorman (with Will Ferrell and Christina Applegate) joke that's flying over everyone's heads. The San Diego Examiner is just a stand-in for the blacklisted Examiner.com. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I will state that the San Diego source being a stand-in for Examiner.com was an idea that did occur to me (San Diego, after all, is nowhere near Detroit; even this lowly Brit knows that!), but I wasn't aware of that reference, and I decided to treat the article as if all of the references were accurate initially; since none would actually satisfy notability requirements, I didn't go into them in much more depth. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be the case that Karianne Hollowell is from San Diego. In that scenario, maybe the classy people of that city would be interested in reading about their hometown girl doing good in Detroit. But your point about local sources would still be valid. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (struck, see below) – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:
– NORTH AMERICA1000 19:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of comments; that's not CBS News, that's CBS Detroit, and it also looks like routine coverage. Michigan Live source is basically just a YouTube link to a commercial and some description of that video; also looks like an advert for the show anyway. WXYZ Detroit looks to be another fairly local source, and isn't exactly in-depth at all. WDET News source looks routine, local, and appears to be a University radio station, so is it even reliable? I'm inclined to agree that the Michigan Chronicle source is fine; but each and every other one looks either local, routine/an advert, unreliable, or a mixture of those things. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I modified the denotation to CBS Detroit in my !vote above. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Red Bull. Struck my initial !vote above. Upon further consideration, a merge is fine, in my opinion. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's my fault for setting the tone for such a heavy emphasis on notability and reliability of sources. That's not what I find the most troublesome about this article. I am troubled by how it was used as a platform for vanity and pranks, simultaneously, it seems. Even today, unsuspecting Wikipedia editors are falling in the traps set for them last year.
Now, "Veronica Corningstone" tells us that this article is "a corrupted copy of a LocalWiki Detroit article." Whether you like Examiner.com as a source or not is irrelevant, you can easily compare the initial version of the Wikipedia article to the initial version of the LocalWiki Detroit article. And then the question has to become whether this sort of wholesale copying is acceptable or not.
If you decide to keep this Wikipedia article, you should lock it down to prevent further pranks and flights of vanity. You should knock it down to just a lead paragraph and a list of irreproachable sources, and you should fully protect it so that only admins can edit it for as long as the Red Bull program is active. Corruption Watchchihuahua (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are valid arguments and I think it's fine to make them. About the LocalWiki, I assume it is this. But that page has a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, so in principle it's OK to copy it. You're right, though, if the article survives a {{CC-notice}} tag should be added to acknowledge the source. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the one. I clicked on a link to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which says "you are free to ... copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format" but also that "you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
Also, I am concerned about the free or nearly free publicity Red Bull has been getting here. If you believe Flutedude's claim of having been paid $120, you should still think it's a very good deal for the energy drink giant. Corruption Watchchihuahua (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – While I have !voted above to keep, I would not be against a selective merge of the article to Red Bull. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this was run-off voting, I'd say deletion first. And selective merge second. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Deletion is the best option. A judicious, highly selective merge is the second best option. Corruption Watchchihuahua (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and redirect to Red Bull. There has been a smattering of coverage, but not really enough to where I'd say that this merits its own individual article at this point in time. I'll try to re-write the article to flow a little better and then cut/paste it into the Red Bull article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found evidence that this is something they do globally, at least since 2009. I've re-written parts of the article to reflect on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – (Another user) has struck the nomination and comments, because the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, and justifiably so. I don't think this AfD should be closed, however, given that there has been plenty of input from legitimate editors; and for what it is worth, if someone needs a legitimate nominator to consider this AfD valid, then they may consider myself to be that nominator. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:27, 24 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 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Simmonds[edit]

Lucy Simmonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR.. Does not have significant roles in multiple notable stage performances. JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Not Fail WP:NACTOR..Had 2 Significant Roles at 2 seperate Occasions in a Massive production does count as multiple. And Does have Large Following. Mywikinameis(talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say if it meets criteria of notability. The mention of her brother being in a music video doesn't seem to justify her own Wikipedia page, but then again she did play two significant roles... Thoughts? I'm on the border of saying delete but maybe there is a reference I overlooked. W.A.A.S. (talk) 9:41, 16 January 2015 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeAreAllStars (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find no reviews or other material that call out her performance in her stage roles that would indicate that she is a notable actor. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 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. KTC (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Kleibl[edit]

Roman Kleibl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a comment Just a comment, mate, it's obvious your kickboxing knowledges are pretty limited. You keep deleting the databases of some really serious and known kickboxers when we can't find these records anywhere else. Wikipedia only has something to earn from these, from our page views. The problem is that you are doing this by yourself. Many people are probably swearing or even cursing you because you have no place on this this site because of them. Kleibl holds so many important wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:82DF:FFFF:0:0:4F71:F314 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the fact that you can't find this information anywhere else is why those articles get deleted. Wikipedia requires significant independent coverage from reliable sources. It also has some specific guidelines for kickboxers that aren't being met or the articles wouldn't get deleted. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't be telling Britannica that they need to have an article about this guy. I know, I know, Wikipedia's not paper. But once in a while it wouldn't hurt to think about it in those terms. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and the only coverage is routine sports reporting--fight announcements and results. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kornkan sutthikoses[edit]

Kornkan sutthikoses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR.. non-notable JMHamo (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I seeing no citations throughout the entirety of this article? If this article is to remain it needs to have cited references, and the references at the very end of the article do not meet Wikipedia's terms for Reliability or Verifiable sources. If cited references that are beyond social media cannot be implemented, then I say delete. WeAreAllStars (talk) 9:28, 16 January 2015 (EST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oroville, California. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confess) @ 12:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oroville Fire Department[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oroville Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

insufficient references for notability ,and none would be expected for a town of such size. One fire station; 4 engines. Their most prominent event seems to have been a lumber yard fire causing relatively trivial damage and no injuries. The principle is NOT DIRECTORY. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How does wp:NOTDIRECTORY apply? There is no directory-like list of anything included.
I closed the previous AFD early as a "Speedy Keep", based on article development, upon deletion nominator changing their mind, and there remaining just 2 Keep votes, no opposes. I don't mind this new AFD being opened right away; I guess the decision was not obvious. I'll offer that the IMPORTANCE of the topic for the Wikipedia is not really obvious to me, but didn't Wikipedia policy change, from requiring something like an assertion of importance, to merely requiring sources? User:DGG, can you comment on what notability requirements now are, if I am missing something? What's covered is supported, I believe. And the 1928 fire coverage is interesting in linked source, and is about the performance of this fire department itself, in a publication apparently seeking to provide guidance/"lessons learned" type examples to fire fighters nation-wide. Apparently this department did well to build some fire-line of green lumber boards, from what I understand from the source, rather than trying to save what could not be saved. --doncram 22:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the same as achievement. However, wikipedia keep articles on the basis of WP:Notability . Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previous AfD rationale for the article's deletion did not provide a valid reason for deletion but reasons to cleanup. I guess that was why Gaff voted its keep and cleanup in the first instance (not too sure, I might be wrong). However, it doesn't seemed to me that the issue of the subject notability was addressed in that discussion. However, Zackmann08 Comments; Hello. I was hoping you could help me. I saw your comments regarding my nomination of Oroville Fire Department (California) for deletion. There is something I have never understood about the process and I was hoping you could help me understand on Gaff talk page and their vote here as Keep suggested that Zackmann08 don't really understand certain guidelines and policy.
doncram Non-admin closure of the previous discussion seemed not to be a good one to me. The fact that an article nominator withdrew their nomination is not enough to Non-admin close discussion like this. Certain factors needs to be put into considerations such as weather the subject actually meet WP:GNG or other criteria. If the article appears to fail WP:GNG, it can be re-nominated for a better consensus to be reached. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, your view about closure noted. --doncram 01:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of User:doncram's decision to close the AfD, it technically met criteria #1 for a Wikipedia:Speedy keep and per WP:NAC, that is an appropriate closure. As with any NAC, the AfD can certainly be re-opened. Gaff (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an AfD is withdrawn by the nominator and there are no other delete votes, it is routinely closed. doncram (talk · contribs) did absolutely nothing wrong. Indeed, what you are asking (for the closer to substitute their own judgement for that of the commenters) actually is against policy. Of course, doncram could have offered his opinion as a regular !vote if he wanted, but as the AfD stood there was absolutely no reason not to close it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or less favored Merge with City of Oroville? or delete for fails WP:GNG: My original keep and cleanup was in response to the reasons suggested for the initial AfD. I added some content, a few refs and cleaned up the article, but have since been otherwise occupied. In response to comments above, that I do not understand certain guidelines, that is not necessarily true (but none of us are perfect). By the way, can somebody fix the formatting on the comments above? It is getting tough to read who said what when... Gaff (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response Gaff, that comment was not actually directed to you but Zackmann08. I was a bit in a hurry. Of course your edit history shows that you have a better understanding of the core wikipedia guidelines and policies. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, reliable secondary sources have been provided to support the notability of this topic. Whether or not it is a stand alone article or is merged with the city article can be debated on the talk pages of the respective articles. This article should be kept and this AfD closed (again). Gaff (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, regarding the trivialization of the damage caused by the fire: that is a very WP:POV statement. For this small, relatively remote, and not wealthy community, the fire would have been simply cataclysmic. It probably created substantial hardship for the owner of the lumber yard, the people working there, and the entire community.Gaff (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Oroville, California. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oroville, California – Fire department. NORTH AMERICA1000 19:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - article is actually in pretty good shape. Whether the information should be retained as a stand-alone article or as part of the city article makes little difference, but it should definitely be retained. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the city article and drop the trivia of 1921.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:37, 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. slakr\ talk / 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PsyToolkit[edit]

PsyToolkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software. The only references in the article are by the author of the package, who apparently developed int for his own use. There are only 7 references in Google Schola� to his article on the program in Behavior Research Methods other than his own, and they are all from people mentioning it in terms of other methods that are the main subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comments by User DGG, the idea of non-notable software is difficult to measure and define. For example, It should be noted that the software is used extensively in the teaching of psychology and around the world. This is not directly reflected in Google Scholar citations, but there are other citations (albeit currently not all listed) showing this. What is the solution, adding those? This article had been deleted before, although it existed for 4 years. Villaonisland (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:36, 8 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 00:19, 15 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, Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Have you any evidence that these programs are "used widely for the teaching of psychology around the world".? If there are reliable sources for that -- as distinct from scattered instances, then the product would probably be notable,especially is they discuss it in depth. They might have escaped }Google Scholar, so what is there? DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

There are several sources, I can add them when I have time. Some of these were in an earlier version of PsyToolkit which was deleted. The bar is set very high for this software. I have checked other software packages for specialist communities which have fewer references and cannot prove easily that they are notable. Given the subjectivity of notability, it might be worthwhile to give this article the benefit of the doubt. Villaonisland (talk 20 December 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: @Northamerica1000: relisted the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 15, but @Samwalton9: commented it out from there and it never got fixed. Re-relisting at the current day's log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only sources listed in deleted revisions are already in the article (as the external link and the currently-first ref). I'm inclined towards deletion; this has had almost five years since first creation to get a source that doesn't trace back to the software's author. If such are eventually forthcoming, we can revisit it. —Cryptic 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient reliable sources to support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:31, 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. KTC (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Global Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alliance Global Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear indication of importance/notability for the company has been established. The only sources cited in the article are press releases. There was a prior deletion discussion, but it seems to have been confused by two distracting issues 1) that the company name "Alliance Global Group" is also used by an entirely different company based in the Philippines, and 2) that the prior nomination did not cite importance/notability as the reason for deletion. The Philippines-based company is a large and highly notable company, but this article is about a UAE-based company that does not seem notable. The UAE-based company seems to be just a regional distributor of other companys' products that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources (to the best of my awareness). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea how the first nomination got a consensus of keep. It was misleading that another company has the exactly the same name. I completely agree with nom.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 21:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete press releases are not independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Not to be confused with another company of the same name which is. Orasis (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric Pop Records[edit]

Eccentric Pop Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In a standard pass through my logs today I discovered this article had been recreated again after having been csd'd twice before while at Eccentric pop records this year on A7 grounds. The article as it appears now is no different than the two previous incarnations deleted, and I would csd it myself were it not for the fact that I rediscovered it, hence the afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE: administratively I would ask that if this is deleted it be long term protected from recreation, as this is getting ridiculous. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely nada in google news or books. Even regular web search turns up nothing except the facebook page, and a couple of posts on punk websites that barely qualify as press releases. The articles for notable bands the article claims have signed to the label don't link back to this article. Does not meet my notability level for labels, (which is lower than most people's), much less CORP or GNG. The only hope for this one is if some underground print publications can be found. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 20:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 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 deckertalk 07:40, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the above-mentioned search results don't include any sources that are close to reliable, and the history of this page doesn't help its cause at all. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leotask[edit]

Leotask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mixture of promotion and manual for a non-notable bit of software. I don't get a single relevant Google hit that isn't Wikipedia or a page related to the project.
PRODded by User:NawlinWiki as "nonnotable and self-promotional"; PROD removed by article creator User:Mleoking with the justification that "This is a completely free & open-source framework, and there is no commercial interest to promoter it. 2) The framework has been used by many colleagues in my research lab, and we believe it will befit researchers in a wide community.". Kolbasz (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as prodder), nonnotable and self-promotional (User:Mleoking; "Leotask"). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can not really understand the rationale to delete the article. I understand Wikipedia as somewhere for people to collectively explain existing concepts. 1) LeoTask is a publicly available framework in Github, and it can be used by more researchers. So that I feel it deserves an entry on Wikipedia. 2) notable is a relative term. Is everything on Wikipedia notable? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — From1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Please read the guide to deletion. Arguments in a deletion discussion should not be based on personal feelings, but rather Wikipedia's policies.
      Wikipedia is not indiscriminate; it has certain rules and standards for inclusion. The most important of those is the concept of notability. The standard test for notability is that the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As far as I can tell, Leotask has received no coverage whatsoever by any independent source.
      In addition to the rules for inclusion, there are also exclusionary rules. These include (linked above, but examples for completeness' sake) promotion ("a fast, flexible and reliable framework") and how-to guides ("Every application should extend the Task class and implement the application by overriding Task's methods"). Kolbasz (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entry is updated and the problematic phrases you mentioned are revised.
  • Keep, an author is in the best position to describe the things he/she invented. I feel authors should be encouraged to directly contribute to wiki entries about the things they created, rather than calling them self-promotional. Authors' contributions may be biased. However biased is not a reason to delete an article. Instead that means more people should be involved to make the description more objective: i.e. the article should remain in the Wikipedia. talk. — Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Mleoking (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Kolbasz (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per nom and NawlinWiki. Completely fails WP:GNG and it appears that no absolutely no reliable sources exist that mention this project. I'd also add that WP:NOTWEBHOST might apply, given that the article looks like a copy and paste from the README.md in Mleoking's github repo with some graphics added for further explanation. Dolescum (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are active discussions about the framework on Stack Overflow. In addition, criticizing someone for copy and paste does not help improve the quality of an entry. People should be encouraged to contribute more and comment less. Love2read2write — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)— Love2read2write (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Stack Overflow - an open-for-all question and answer website - is not a reliable source. Nor do 6 posts on it - that all showed up 5-6 hours ago - confer notability. Kolbasz (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete There is not even a claim to significance for this software, this articles fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT and there seems to be zero relibale sources.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just found and added a reference for this entry [1]. It is only a matter of days before Google Scholar includes this article (FYI, Google Scholar will include every article published by arXiv). Given the influence of arXiv and Google Scholar, the coverage,references to this article will only increase in the future. The title of the debate will be increasingly out of date. As the editor noted in the title of this page we should remember to assume good faith on the part of others. The contributors of this entry spent time and efforts to give their insights about a useful framework. Can I encourage the commentators to join them? If the efforts spent in this debate were instead used in revising the entry, the quality of the entry would be significantly improved already.
  • I personally downloaded and tested the software. I found it to be a very good implementation of the MapReduce model on a mult-core computer. I then added my bit of thought (about MapReduce, and recovery from interruption) in the description of this entry. I feel this is the very kind of positive contribution required by wikipedia. My name summarizes my thought: DoRatherThanTalk DoRatherThanTalk (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)— DoRatherThanTalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  1. ^ Changwang Zhang; Shi Zhou; Benjamin M. Chain (January 2015). "LeoTask: a fast, flexible and reliable framework for computational research" (arXiv:1501.01678). Cornell University. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Keep: Not an actual publicity, it is referring to some better sources than we assume before selecting for deletion. SamuelDay1 (talk) 17:54, 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 18:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, zero independent coverage. That "better source than we assume" was coauthored by one of the software's developers. —Cryptic 18:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kolbasz- Google search results bear out the lack of notability of this article: First two are from WP, the third is the only source that's even close to reliable, the fourth is the GitHub link, the fifth is categorized under Blatant Advertising, the sixth through ninth are not pertinent, and the tenth is by the author of the software, nor did I find anything relevant in the 11th through 30th. Also, judging by the fact that ALL of the accounts supporting keeping the article have the few or no other edits flag, I have reason to suspect sockpuppeting, although the sockpuppetry or lack thereof should be inconsequential to the discussion. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The quality of the article and the quality of the software have no bearing on deletion. But according to WP:GNG, notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." One short paper describing the software's features does not qualify as "significant coverage." Piboy51 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete about a week old porject. Nobody else has used it yet, except the sock puppet invasion here. Clearly not notable yet. Maybe in a year, or two. --188.110.67.117 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no reliable sources that explain why this software is notable. Also, the article has a promotional tone. --Biblioworm 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found this, but I guess it was written by the developers. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. --Jakob (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're not wrong, no. (It's already mentioned above and cited in the article, too.) —Cryptic 00:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • More importantly, it's not peer reviewed or submitted to any journal. It's the academic version of a press release. Kolbasz (talk) 10:59, 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 speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright violation. —Cryptic 18:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disposal of garbage[edit]

Disposal of garbage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTFORUM: Article publishing the editor's own thoughts and analyses. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:55, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal[edit]

Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal, no independent references. Article has been speedily deleted four times previously--recommend salting if consensus is to delete. --Finngall talk 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Prior deletions were for issues of copyright and promotion, not for notability. The present article does not present those problems. As an open-access journal published by one of the major publishers (Elsevier) and indexed by the major academic journal indexers, I'd be willing to let this article stay. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

"Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal" satisfies the Criteria mentioned in the "Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)". For example, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal is indexed in SCOPUS. Please see http://www.scopus.com/results/results.url?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=2001-0370&sid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a30&sot=b&sdt=b&sl=15&s=ISSN%282001-0370%29&origin=searchbasic&txGid=3B399A6130211F68742EE4D9188827D7.zQKnzAySRvJOZYcdfIziQ%3a3 Publications.assistant (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the automated redistribution of tables of contents by third parties for financial gain is not in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Per WP:NJOURNAL:
      • Criteria
        1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
      • Notes
        1. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus. A few simple mentions in passing that "Journal of Foo is an important journal" should not be taken as evidence that Criterion 1 is satisfied.
      Since this journal is indexed in Scopus, that appears to meet the stated criterion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seriously meets the criteria of academic journals. Elsevier and RNCSB are indeed serious. SamuelDay1 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs major cleanup (see WP:JWG), but since the journal is indexed in Scopus, it meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal's own figures suggest they had published 130 articles in the 2 years prior to entering into an agreement with Elsevier in June 2014. The journal does also seem to have supported some conferences around the world, for example in Heraklion, Greece June 2013, New Dehli, India June 2014 and a meeting scheduled to be in Hangzhou, China May 2015. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a relatively new journal, but it's from a major publisher and already meets the indexing standards of WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Hassan Lahori Kashmiri[edit]

Syed Hassan Lahori Kashmiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Its sources are unreliable Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 12:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are two main reasons for deletion. The first is simply that there don't seem to be any real, verifiable sources about the subject and his name is so freaking generic that a search isn't likely to turn up anything useful. Syed is an honorific which would need to be removed anyway, and neither Lahori nor Kashmiri are family names; they're epithets for someone who lived in those areas and that's common in the Muslim world. Hassan is about as common a personal name as Mike or Steve.
The other reason is that this is soley promotional. Notice that the article states that: "Raheislam has a plan to publish his biography in Urdu Language."
The creator of the article, User:Raheislam, writers on their user page: "Raheislam is an organization founded..." It then lists Facebook and Twitter pages.
This seems like a non-notable subject with a small, non-notable publishing house writing a bio on him and exploiting Wikipedia for publicity. It fails on many counts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the refs appear sketchy. Please ping me if ISBNs can be found for the wroks being cited or VIAF entries for their authors and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable, improperly sourced.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:30, 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 redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain. czar ⨹ 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsden's square chain[edit]

Ramsden's square chain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough content. Should be merged and redirected to Ramsden's link Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:26, 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 redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain. czar ⨹ 22:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsden's square link[edit]

Ramsden's square link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough content. Should be merged and redirected to Ramsden's link Legacypac (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely to be a permastub. No prejudice against merging. Wikipedia isn't a directory of units. There is a precedent that we don't want these related articles per previous AfDs, as well. — kikichugirl speak up! 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain and possibly add a little more information about what "square" means. A chain consists of 100 links (each link is a length of metal; they are linked together)—see Gunter's chain. Links were different sizes at different places/times. A "square chain" is the area of a square where the length of each side is one chain. Ramsden's chain is at Chain (unit)#Ramsden's chain, and if it were felt necessary, that section could spell out that a Ramsden's link is one hundredth of a Ramsden's chain. There is a Link (unit) article, but I don't think that should be padded out because a link is simply part of a chain, and the encyclopedic information should be at the chain article. See WP:Articles for deletion/Aum (unit) for more information. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 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, NORTH AMERICA1000 17:25, 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Poirier-Mozzone[edit]

Michele Poirier-Mozzone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be not notable (WP:GNG). Google News search returns only one hit [4], but with no significant coverage. I can't find any reliable source that significantly cover the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails GNG. No encouraging results found by a quick search. ƬheStrikeΣagle 13:46, 14 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 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish that inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 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. slakr\ talk / 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Band Famous[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Band Famous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed; almost all sources are passing mentions or have nothing to do with the band. The band does not appear to meet any criterion of WP:NMUSIC, with no major label albums, charted singles, or notable appearances. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of sufficient coverage Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the sources that do mention the band even in passing are independent. Delete. —Cryptic 17:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

I have been watching this page. Not only was this group discussed significantly over live broadcast internationally, but the group was also thoroughly discussed on a radio program through National Public Radio / Minnesota Public Radio. It was not a trivial mention as one user noted. Also, verified Twitter accounts are credible sources according to Wikipedia Verifiability terms. Slug of Atmosphere, a pioneer of hip-hop, who also has a record label and is renowned worldwide, publicly tweeted his support for this group, which directly relates to the article. It is therefore a verifiable source. In addition to the radio broadcast with NPR/MPR, there was a feature written on Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog, by Jay Gabler, which is also a verifiable source. It is a blog of a nation-wide radio station.

To quote the user above, TenPoundHammer, "None of the sources that do mention the band even in passing are independent." How is National Public Radio not an independent source? How is Slug of Atmosphere not an independt source? Also 89.3FM The Current (The Local Show included) is independently funded by the listeners, which is about as independent as one can get.

Taken directl;y from Wikipedia:Verifiability page:

"Newspaper and magazine blogs Policy shortcut: WP:NEWSBLOG Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below."

(User talk:avenueofwarcraft) — avenueofwarcraft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

________________________

Someone is clearly trolling on this group's Wikipedia, or I should say some people. I'm sharing the references, which I've thoroughly examined myself. For some reason these sources are not staying up in the references as they should. To reiterate what avenueofwarcraft above me said, according to Wikipedia's Verifiability page, the sources that I'm sharing below are *independent* and are verifiable. The blog is from a national radio station, by credible, independent writer, Jay Gabler. Not only was a very nice feature written on the band by Gabler, but they were discussed on The Local Show on 89.3FM The Current by Gabler and David Campbell (radio host), which is broadcast nationwide. It directly relates to the article and the band's credibility, and it highlights the Kickstarter they attempted. They've also had multiple interviews beyond these that one can research, but I personally feel these sources are the most credible and should be included as verifiable sources on the group's Wikipedia page:

Also here is the tweet mentioned above by Slug of hip-hop group Atmosphere, and it directly relates to the article per Wikipedia standards of using a verified twitter account's tweet as a verifiable reference:

He, along with Greg Deocampo and others are among some of the band's very well-known and respectable supporters. Tell me how these three sources that keep being removed from the article are considered trivial? I think those who see it that way are mistaken or at the very least did not take a look at any of the above links.

All users Wikihounding or doing disruptive editing are being/will be reported.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

  • @WeAreAllStars: To answer your questions: Twitter accounts are viable references in certain cases, but they should not be used excessively as sources. I see no point where NPR is used as a source. Local radio station blogs are not reliable sources because they are self published. The links from The Current are the only sources that seem reliable, but only one publication so far does not transfer into notability. Nominating a page for deletion twice is not by any stretch of the imagination "wikihounding"; I nominated it twice only because the first nomination failed to reach a consensus, and it's ludicrous for you to think that a deletion nomination is on par with harassment. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS to learn what constitutes a reliable source; and please consult WP:BAND and tell me which criterion, if any, you think Band Famous meets. So far I was unable to find anything beyond the Current articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

____

@TenPoundHammer: The tweet by Slug of Atmosphere on the verified Atmosphere twitter account was not used excessively, it was mentioned once and cited properly and it relates directly to the article and yet it has been deleted repeatedly, along with the verifiable sources of The Local Current radio show, and the feature written by JAY GABLER of Minnesota Public Radio, which is a subdivision of National Public Radio, and 89.3FM The Current has listeners nationwide and is completely independent. The blog was not self-published, it was a legitimately published feature on the band that should not be written off as "a trivial mention". Also the comment about CNET that a band member put it up there? That is not the case, in case you aren't aware, apps and other software for download are added to that site by administrators of CNET. The band didn't even publicly announce the release of the app they built until June 13th, and yet it was up on CNET on June 2nd. It doesn't even make logical sense that the band would have published it there before they went public with the launch of their app.

Regarding the consensus of the initial nomination for deletion, it was closed, and the article was up for good, although sources continued to be deleted via disruptive editing, and you once more nominated it for deletion. It wasn't the fact that it was nominated for deletion that led me to find it viable as harassment, but see Examples of disruptive editing:

1. Is tendentious <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing>: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

  • Articles from independent and reliable sources continually are removed, such as

the following three sources, which according to Wikipedia’s terms are all verifiable:

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2014/11/music-body-painting-web-development-meet-the-band-famous/ http://www.thecurrent.org/programs/local-show/2014/11/23

  • Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their

web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Jay Gabler’s feature on the band therefore is a verifiable source, as published on Minnesota Public Radio’s 89.3FM The Current Local Current Blog.

https://twitter.com/atmosphere/status/522718495986155520

  • Per Wikipedia terms of Verifiability, a tweet by a verified twitter account if it

directly relates to the articles is accepted as a verifiable source.

(User talk:WeAreAllStars)

_____________________________

  • Edward321, leave the article be--the perceptive reader can figure out what's what. Let the AfD run its course. Now, if anyone can format WeAreAllStars' comments properly... Drmies (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

TenPoundHammer and Edward321, do please stop erasing facts. I am not the author of this article, I am merely trying to uphold Wikipedia terms in acknowledging the fact that disruptive editing was taking place. I'm pleased to see that reliable verifiable sources have ceased to be removed and I hope it will remain that way. Thank you Drmies for your input, and I have tidied up what I was trying to say. Also, apologies to @TenPoundHammer: as I see that I did in fact mistakenly accuse you of doing repeated deletions of reliable sources, after looking at the history again I see it was another user after all. Please accept my apologies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete coverage in independent media is tenuous at best. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following comment was posted on the nomination's talk page by mistake. I moved it here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the credibility & reliability of the sources used in Band Famous' Wiki article: The use of radio broadcasts from National Public Radio and Minnesota Public Radio 89.3FM The Current are fully credible sources. The Band Famous' interview with Jay Gabler was most definitely broadcasted and archived. “Audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.”- WP:RS (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) This article also has numerous inline citations for all sources & quotes used. The Band Famous are “composers and performers outside mass media traditions” that have “composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre and are frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.” - WP:BAND (Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles) This nomination for Band Famous' Wiki deletion is ridiculous, and seems to be the product of one persons vendetta against them. The article, sites, sources & Band itself are very real and very valid. Leave it up.Emmiegem (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Emmiegem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing that suggest notability. Wikipedia is not here to promote. Wow, someone published their advert, they must be notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a related page at Jacob Alexander Figueroa (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the refbombing, there still lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish that inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 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) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Jaihind[edit]

Mission Jaihind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newspaper launched last year, no third-party references. Article about this newspaper was previously speedily deleted under the same title. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bjelleklang[edit]

Bjelleklang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Someone created the page Bjelleklang and it's nominated for deletion as a BLP without any sources. So far I can't find anything that really shows that he's notable enough for an entry. on Wikipedia ........ therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia Notability guidelines Samat lib (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines Samat lib (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No votes in your own nomination. Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, group has charted multiple times and has an article in the major Norwegian encyclopedia. I added a couple of newspaper articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:33, 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Gibson[edit]

Linda Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a non-notable executive written by an undisclosed paid editor (or one indistinguishable from such, judging from other deleted contributions). The closest thing to an independent nontrivial third-party reference given amongst the linkspam-in-disguise at the bottom of the article is an interview, which is primary (it's since been removed). See also Peter Bain (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 16:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (disclosure: I've speedy deleted a prior version of this article. —Cryptic 19:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG non notable executive of non notable company Old Mutual Asset Management. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No independent coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 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) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bain[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Peter Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a minimally-notable executive written by an undisclosed paid editor (or one indistinguishable from such, judging from other deleted contributions). Those references that are independent, when they even mention the article subject, are (like this article) long on puffery, short on actual substance. See also Linda Gibson (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG executive of non notable company Old Mutual Asset Management. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's apparently either Old Mutual or a subdivision of it. Hard to tell through the doublespeak. —Cryptic 17:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Nothing of substance written about him, just press releases and other trash. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. This Baltimore Sun article is the best source, and it really is just routine business news. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources not independent, no significant coverage.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:28, 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 speedy deleted by Peridon. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hall (Footballer Born 1994)[edit]

John Hall (Footballer Born 1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, has only made bench, no appearances JMHamo (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No idea what @115ash: is on about. GiantSnowman 13:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. 115ash appears to have misread the relevant guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fenix down. Fails WP:NFOOTY. APerson (talk!) 14:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too soon as per the project standards, undelete if he makes his debut for the club in the A-League (or equiv elsewhere). However, please move the article to it's "correct" and likely recreation title of John Hall (footballer, born 1994) before you delete it, so that this AFD can be found in case it gets recreated before he's actually notable. The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done JMHamo (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article contains many sources. He is well known in Oceania. Lopoponsnko (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 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) 13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho PTV Kids Programming (Sundays)[edit]

Idaho PTV Kids Programming (Sundays) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a directory or program guide. This is an entirely unsourced, trivial list, almost a TV Guide with no evidence of notability, list or otherwise, narrow focus per WP:SALAT, and some original research to boot. WP:LISTCRUFT that hopefully will not inspire similar lists for every PBS television market in the U.S. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 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 speedily deleted by User:Graeme Bartlett per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Ahern[edit]

Evan Ahern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does this person warrant a resume here? Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 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) 13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishra's of Pratap Nagar (Ramouli)[edit]

Mishra's of Pratap Nagar (Ramouli) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contextless unsourced and incoherent WP:OR with no indication of significance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely obscure Indian nobility. For context, Mishra is a surname used by the Brahmins (noble/higher class in India). However, according to the article the Mishra family of Pratap Nagar or Ramouli (both of which appear to be small villages in Bihar, according to Google searches), is not Brahmin but Kshatriya, a military or governing class. "Thakur" could be either the title (used by some rulers of princely states) or the surname. Article's creator hasn't really made clear if these particular Mishras did rule a princely state (in which case they would be analogous to a small European noble house), or whether they had a less important position. Either way, there aren't likely to be any sources that could verify any of this, so deletion it has to be. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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. slakr\ talk / 05:03, 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 redirect to Inna. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INNA en Concert[edit]

INNA en Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tour: no coverage of the tour provided as is required by WP:NTOUR; article is little more than a calendar and a setlist. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:28, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 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 redirect to Inna discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Days (EP)[edit]

Summer Days (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is supposed to come out next summer, but there's nothing here but a bunch of YouTube spam (check the history--I pruned the article a little bit) and a tracklist generously larded with wikilinks to the producers' article. No reliable sources. Thus, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (shout) @ 20:31, 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 04:27, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to discography. IT's unreferenced and unreleased. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 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. NORTH AMERICA1000 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Señorita (Shinee song)[edit]

Señorita (Shinee song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song fails WP:GNG. It is a non-promotional track on Shinee's Romeo (EP). It was not released independently as a single, has no music video, and was performed only at Shinee concerts. The article pads content by naming the song's composer (who has his/her own Wikipedia article already), and then adding additional information about him/her that is not related to the article. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) @ 20:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Haven't heard of the song before, and not even a single. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get Down (Shinee song)[edit]

Get Down (Shinee song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Song fails WP:GNG. This is a non-promotional track from Shinee's 2009, Year of Us. It was not released as a single, has no music video, and was performed only once on TV, as part of Shinee's "comeback" performance of multiple songs to support their promo single. Other than that, it was performed only at Shinee concerts. There is no evidence it ever charted. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 20:27, 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 04:26, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically per nom. Not independently notable. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per WP:NSONGS. Song has to chart or be notable on its own, not because it was performed by an artist. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J Sherman[edit]

Joseph J Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not state why this person is notable. It also needs too much work to leave as a live article, IMO. Kbabej (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Assuming Sherman is notable, he would be notable for the same reason anyone is - that he has been noticed by reliable sources. There is no need for the article to say "he is notable because X". On the second point, the article does indeed need work, but AfD is not for cleanup. Not the relevant question: is Sherman notable? Sources 2, 10, & 14 are reliable and in depth coverage. (I am making a small assumption that the Hebrew source, #10, is truly Sherman as I can't read Hebrew.) That would make Sherman notable under the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm that source 10 is about Sherman. No opinion about the article yet; the coverage is in-depth, but what about WP:BLP1E? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E is intended for people caught up in a news story. Most people are known for "one thing", so its not meant to disqualify people known for one thing, but rather protect private individuals who where merely in the news and didn't have biographical information written about them. (I.E. people where their entire biography would focus on a single news story, not properly discuss all aspects of their life.) It's hard to see "converting to Judaism" as qualifying as an event in that regard, and the sources do contain biographical information here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per ThaddeusB. (ThaddeusB: I am aware of the definition of BLP1E, but I had not noticed the degree of the coverage of his biography vs. merely his conversion. In addition, the Hebrew article is in fact a follow-up article, two years after his conversion, so there you have continued coverage.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by הסרפד (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article has enough WP:V & WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has significant coverage in Reliable sources which are verifiable. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see only one possible reliable source that is anywhere near substantial, the Jerusalem Post article in ref. 2. (and possibly ref 10,whichI cannot read) Everything else is either a mere notice, an unreliable source, the same source used multiple times, or his own work. ref 14, for example, is a self-published book--nothing in CreateSpace is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 10 is a full-length article (or rather an interview article) in the Hebrew edition of Mishpacha, the most widely distributed Haredi magazine in Israel, according to the sourced statement at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Knowing how the Haredi press works, Sherman was almost certainly covered by Mishpacha's Hebrew- and English-language competitors in similar detail. I can find no evidence of that online, but that is not surprising. That, when taken with Ref 2, should be enough. There does seem to be some COI involved, though—see commons:Special:Contributions/Adamreinman, and compare with the History of this article—so perhaps more skepticism is warranted. At best, it should be stubified. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources certainly meet WP:BIO. Haredi newspapers and magazines often look for stories of converts for their Shavuot issues, but this person seems to be getting ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usually when I find the phrase "X is notable because" within an article, it is a red flag that the subject isn't notable. However, it often helps to be able to quickly establish why a subject is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and it isn't immediately apparent to me here. However#2, the article has established notability via WP:GNG with multiple instances of substantial coverage by reliable sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:54, 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 delete. slakr\ talk / 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac High School[edit]

Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable high school theatre group Fyddlestix (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a company to be considered notable on Wikipedia, it needs to have been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." From the content of the article in its current state, it is evident that there are a sufficient amount of reliable sources and the "Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac" has received significant coverage not only in its local community, but also in the D.C. metropolitan area for its participation in the Capital Fringe festival, the National Capital Area for its participation in the Cappies program, nationally for being the first high school to present the landmark play about marriage equality, "8", and soon to be internationally as they will present the "25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. While it is true that a few weeks ago, while the article was still under construction, that the references weren't formatted correctly and it was confusing on how they related to the article, they have been fixed and it is now clear how they relate to the article. --Emma.norville (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Emma.norville — Emma.norville (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If there is an article somewhere that can link this theatre company to the festival in Scotland, I think you'll have all you need for this to be a verified page. — Osfacae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note to closing Admin: A Sockpuppet investigation has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Osfacae  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:11, 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 : Speedily deleted as a near-identical re-creation of Asif Ali Lighari (and similar articles about the same person under different titles). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laghari Asif Ali[edit]

Laghari Asif Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person; article does not credibly indicate notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), and all of the references that claim to establish notability are by the article's subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt. This is about the 5th time a new SPA has created an article on this individual and in every instance we have found him not to be notable. Please see my comments here. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I should add that the name of the article has been changed sufficiently enough in each case to evade detection. I don't know what tools might be at the disposal of WP admins to handle article naming combinations to combat this sort of persistent vanity authoring. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 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 soft delete. slakr\ talk / 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bleckley Inn[edit]

Bleckley Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Google News search seem to show one article partly about the subject, and another brief mention, but it is not enough to establish notability. Darylgolden(talk) 12:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the former incarnation as a historic building is enough, even if all the sources for that aren't online. The article needs to be about the building though, not the business. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to delete. I remember investigating this article a while back when I tagged it with multiple issues. The author is (or was) a paid editor focusing on writing articles about bed-and-breakfast lodgings, and was blocked for a couple of weeks for sockpuppetry. Some of this author's articles have existed a while, some have been deleted. I agree that the building is historic, but it isn't a given that all historic buildings are notable enough for an article here, particularly if the historic interest is mostly local. I'd like to see further evidence, online or not. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:CORP, because there are no significant sources about the business. If the building is historical, and if there are enough resources, then an article on the building would be appropriate. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 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, Deadbeef 02:59, 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 merge to List of TVXQ concert tours. Rounded to merge. The predominant guideline-based argument given against outright retention is notability of tours. Whether or not an article is in progress or its subject merely verified to exist aren't valid arguments to address notability. slakr\ talk / 01:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With: Live Tour 2015[edit]

With: Live Tour 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This tour has not yet occurred, it has merely been announced, and this article seems to be mostly for WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The tour has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary media. Of the four references listed, three are the group's own website (self-promotion) and one is a mention on the Korean gossip site, Osen. The tour has, at this time, no notability; nothing of significance has been written about it apart from its predicted existence. The article should be written after the tour has concluded, or at least is well underway, and once it has received significant coverage independent of the artist, and there is something to actually say about it aside from it merely having had occurred. Korean online gossip sites (which is most of the Korean "entertainment" sites) do not meet the requirement of being either reliable or independent of the artists. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NTOUR. --Random86 (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a work in progress. Mikepellerintalk 07:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The tour has not even happened. It fails WP:NTOUR. A couple of announcement do not merit its own article.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is in progress besides if Taylor Swift can get an own page for her upcoming tour without anyone complaing then why not this group as well?!--46.115.144.142 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Feel free to AFD the Taylor Swift article if you feel it fails WP:NTOUR. My guess is there is quite a difference in the amount of coverage of that tour in independent, reliable sources, though. Either way, "that thing has an article so this one should too!" is not a valid argument. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:44, 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) 01:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It's now less than a month away. Waste of time to delete and recreate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The beginning of the tour does not guarantee its notability. It must meet WP:NTOUR; sources verifying its existence are not sufficient for an article. Most tours don't merit articles until they are over or at least well underway. This notion many kpop editors have that existence = notability is completely false. Heck, as is obvious by the glut of articles about things that don't even exist yet, many kpop editors believe a mere announcement of something = notability. Shinyang-i (talk) 13:19, 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, Deadbeef 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now, CRYSTAL is valid enough as a reason for deletion. Note also that the thing is unreferenced--there is only one secondary source, and it's of questionable reliability; in addition, one single reference can never prove that the tour is notable via our standards; see WP:NTOUR. So, the keep arguments above aren't valid": the one says "waste of time to delete and recreated" but a. there's really no verified content to delete (unless VMS thinks we're here to supply the reader with tour schedules) and b. the argument here is that it's not valid content; "It's a work in progress"--well, that may be so, but there is no indication that this is work on a notable topic; finally, Taylor Swift--yeah, that's no argument at all. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are already enough third party refs (requires various sets of search words including ones like 'tvxq' and 'tohoshinki')(some in Korean and Japanese) available going back to 9/14, that the article will most likely pass GNG as soon as the tour starts, so I simply oppose wastes of time like this. I've already wasted as much of my own time as I am going to. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are in the article. You could link a couple. And passing GNG isn't simply a matter of throwing in references that have some key words in them: NTOUR requires significant discussion of the tour as a tour. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Redirect for at least the next few weeks is a reasonable option. Previous tours have become GNG, so no reason to believe this one won't. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:15, 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 delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anca Cristofovici[edit]

Anca Cristofovici (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no particular indication this individual is notable, as defined by WP:AUTHOR. Certainly, the current reference, a flyer for a program in which the subject participated, in no way constitutes an independent source attesting notability. - Biruitorul Talk 04:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion. I'm not particularly invested in the Anca Cristofovici page - beyond the four or five mostly minor edits that I contributed - but I don't support deleting the page. I agree with 'Biruitorul' that 'notability' has not been established according a strict interpretation of the guidelines in WP:AUTHOR, but this is a new page and future contributions may take care of that. - Xenxax (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – with no prejudice. It's a well done article, but I wasn't able to find any in-depth reviews, either in English or French. Including the one in External links, which was dead, and I couldn't find that either. I'd like to advise the author to submit it again if the forthcoming novel gets some significant reviews. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability as defined by wikipedia. Should this hypothetically change at some point, content can simply be recreated by admins -- the editor(s) who wish to recreate said content will simply have to point out other sources they can add to this version of the article, and how they establish notability. No need for special pleading here. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion. This article is a start, and can be developed further. In addition to fleshing out Cristofovici's own work, I would like to emphasize her role as the translator of Nobel candidate Ana Blandiana, which introduced her to the English-speaking world. It was AC's translation of Hour of Sand that led Seamus Heaney to promote Blandiana's work in When the Tunnels Meet. Cristofovici's contributions as a critic of photography and modern fiction can be developed. References can be added. --GherkinM75 (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Hi, GherkinM75. As I said above, I think it's well done and I'm open to changing my !vote. What we need most is secondary sources talking about her. Google doesn't find everything, especially in books, so we may have missed those. If there are references for Heaney saying that or talking about her as a critic that would help. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion. I totally agree with Gherkin's reasoning and would allow time for further development and finding additional references. I vote to have the deletion template removed. - Mookalx (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After 1 week, what is the progress? Noteswork (talk) 12:59, 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, Deadbeef 02:07, 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo de Azevedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paulo de Azevedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with notability and reference issues unaddressed. —Swpbtalk 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 20:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 20:27, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 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)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC Rugby[edit]

Velox Valhallians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about local teams with no claim to notability, each does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NRU or WP:ORG. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Included:

Cowichan RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Abbotsford RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meraloma Rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Richmond Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seattle Saracens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fraser Valley Rugby Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chuckanut Bay RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose — Seattle Saracens meets the notability criteria at WP:RU. Quite easily in fact. I don't know how anyone familiar with the club would think otherwise. Seattle regularly contributes multiple players to the U.S. national team, has played in top-level U.S. domestic competitions, and is a frequent subject of coverage by the U.S. rugby media. I'm not going to go through each club listed here, but you get the point. Barryjjoyce (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Barryjjoyce. Meraloma has been on the go since the 1920s as well!-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:57, 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 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, Deadbeef 02:06, 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) 13:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi McGarity[edit]

Kristi McGarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN composer - fails WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC and WP:PROF. The mention in the Hinkle-Turner book is literally 2 lines saying she won an undergraduate award and is pursuing her doctorate (see talk page) - no where near the in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG The Dissident Aggressor 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 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 redirect to Novell. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netoria[edit]

Netoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Google News shows no reports. Darylgolden(talk) 12:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:CORP. only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Novell. Company was acquired by Novell in 1999 and sources are only about the merger. Notability independent of the parent/acquiring company has not been demonstrated.Dialectric (talk) 16:42, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:52, 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, Deadbeef 01:58, 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. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mowgli's Road[edit]

Mowgli's Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no significant coverage in secondary sources. Fails NSONG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (gab) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After a quick Google search, I found two reviews entirely devoted to the song. The two reviews in question are from DigitalSpy and AltSounds. Not to mention, there's the review from The Guardian already cited in the article. All these sources are considered reliable at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. These should be enough to pass WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:32, 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 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) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per [6] - five articles that either mention the song outisde the context of the album or are comletely about the song. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:49, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Music Award for Top Hot 100 Song[edit]

Billboard Music Award for Top Hot 100 Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly random articles for categories at the Billboard Music Awards (and one People's Choice Award). Only four years are featured on these and no information is given to show how or why the award is not the same as Billboard's yearly number-one lists. WP:NOT#IINFO comes to mind here. The info can be easily placed in the main Billboard Music Award article and/or merged into something less cumbersome. - eo (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - found two more: People's Choice Award for Favorite Pop Artist, People's Choice Award for Favorite Male Artist - eo (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They would overload the main article, and NOT#IINFO does not apply. Not exactly the Grammys, but apparently significant enough for somebody to report the results in the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 20:31, 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Starcheers; works on the year articles just fine. Nate • (chatter) 04:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a valid reason. They can't be "just as easily found" if you want to look at a particular category, year by year or to see if a particular artist has won multiple times. It's no different than 12th Academy Awards and Academy Award for Best Picture overlapping a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that that is one of the most recognized/covered awards in the world versus something that is just based on chart results. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:54, 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 not delete. There is no consensus between "Keep" and "Move to Draft namespace", I'll leave this to editors to hammer out on the talkpage if someone wishes to pursue it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Djoir[edit]

Djoir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO as well as any of the more specific biographical notability criteria. Some appearances in music videos, local competitions, etc. but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (more than a mention) in multiple reliable sources. With the number of things she's involved with, I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in favor of keeping the article "Djoir", based on the sources on the Wikipedia page and also those listed below. Some of the other cast members of Colby's Clubhouse also possess Wikipedia articles. This would fall under "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".

References/Citings supporting Djoir Keep:

Carockstar (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Carockstar[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Carockstar (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Incubate. Carockstar has provided various sources, so now it passes WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. If these sources are declared to fail WP:RS, then we should incubate it into a draft so that Carockstar can have some time to find sources and fix it up. Judging by how Carockstar is willing to do the work and everything. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't have any objection to the article being moved to the user or draft space, but I'd encourage you to look at the links. Aside from the AllAccess piece, I'm yet to see any that are secondary, significant, and reliable. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward Incubate with Comment per Rhododendrites' reasoning: Concerning Carockstar's use of the individual pages connected to Colby's Clubhouse as a reason. Crystal Lewis was already well-known as a recording artist (and she did a single guest appearance); Krysta Rodriguez has mainly worked Broadway and the last season of Smash. I had no idea until a couple of weeks ago that Casey Lagos had a page, to be honest. Anyway, I'm thinking this could be a bit early and might consider taking a "wait and see" approach regarding this article. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:51, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 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, Deadbeef 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional References:
  • Djoir Jordan on Beatport Electro House Top 100 Chart: https://web.archive.org/web/20120909230019/http://www.beatport.com/genre/electro-house/17/top-100 "Archive.org" 4 days after her track hit #62 on 5 September 2012 (Verified in Safari; only snapshot available around that date was this link on 9 September 2012). This satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (music) see "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" WP:MUSBIO Criteria #2 which states:"Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" and also see the superscript reference "note 4" which mentions: "This includes genre-specific charts." Electro House to me would seem to fall under this category. She also satisfies "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." under WP:MUSBIO criteria as well. --— Carockstar (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Carockstar[reply]
  • Djoir also had two articles written about her and her past group Vaniti Girlz in The SundayWorld (The Irish version of US Weekly) and The Irish Sun, both publications are still active today:
    • Rowley, Eddie (3 June 2007). "Vaniti Flair". The Sunday World.
    • Milton, Stephen (18 May 2007). "Vaniti's Got Flair". The Irish Sun.
  • On January 13 2015 Djoir's song "Partypocalypse" was featured on the ABC Network's hit TV show Pretty Little Liars, Episode "Fresh Meat" http://abcfamily.go.com/shows/pretty-little-liars/episode-guide/season-05/16-fresh-meat --— Carockstar (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Carockstar[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabino Pio Renteria[edit]

Sabino Pio Renteria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider Austin, Texas to be a large enough city that its city councillors could qualify for Wikipedia articles under WP:NPOL if they were substantively written and sourced with actual content about specific things that they accomplished on the city council — but this, as written, is a "before he was elected to city council" backgrounder that reads like a straight copy-paste or a thinly veiled rewrite of his own campaign brochure ("It was from this backdrop, that he began his lifelong dedication to community service in East Austin", "tireless", etc.) And even a politician who does hold an "automatic NPOL" role still doesn't gain an entitlement to keep that kind of article. Delete; no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a good version. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 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, Deadbeef 01:47, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Radly[edit]

Adam Radly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional bio for unimportant computer executive . Referring to a non-entertainmemt personality by his first name alone is almost always a sign of either a vanity autobio or writing by a press agent who does not realize WP is an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:42, 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, Deadbeef 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability criteria. All the coverage at the article, and all I could find in a search, is self-referential or self-supplied information (such as press releases). --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 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 keep. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Landolina[edit]

Joe Landolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of nobility, created one product via a college start-up, limited coverage (some of which is coverage from his school), one time TED speaker. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The simple fact that this person has accomplished so much as such a young age demonstrates their Notability. But the achievements and coverage is enough to justify keeping this article to me. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It feels a little WP:BLP1E to me, since the coverage mostly focuses on the product Vetigel, but other details like the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and that he was asked to give a TED Talk (that has received independent coverage) pushes me pretty squarely into keep territory. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This person has started a company (which now has 15 employees and has significant coverage) [1], has given three TED talks [2] [3] [4] which have independent coverage citing him as an expert in his field[5], and is working on new products as well.[6] For me, this all points to notability. -- Freemanscott1123 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/video/vetigel-the-band-aid-of-the-future-stops-bleeding-instantly-PaIvLxjcS66F5IWO1SsKtA.html
  2. ^ http://www.tedxgateway.com/speaker/joe-landolina/
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiSBYJ66XPo
  4. ^ http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_landolina_this_gel_can_make_you_stop_bleeding_instantly?language=en
  5. ^ http://www.popsci.com/could-new-injectable-gel-save-lives-battlefield
  6. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/02/nyu-student-wound-healing-gel/2046815/
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that this article is premature; Mr Landolina's accomplishment is certainly impressive, but I don't think there's quite enough coverage yet to reach notability criteria. If he continues along these lines, then there certainly will be in future, but not every spark of potential leads to a thriving flame. Delete with no prejudice against recreation should coverage warrant. DS (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: You say there's not quite enough coverage, so I would like to pose a question. Since Mr. Landolina has been featured in many publications and on TV both in Europe and the United States (see list below) starting as early as 2013, I wonder what it will take to make him notable enough for Wikipedia?
  • Product, not person An article on the product is probably more appropriate than one on the person - after all, what he is known for is what he invented, not for being himself (e.g. rock star). The references here are primarily about the product, which is what he is known for, so this article could be re-written to emphasize the product with some information about him. If other products are developed and if he continues to be news, then a separate article on him may be warranted. But it makes no sense to me to put him in WP before his product. (P.S. There is an single purpose account in the history, which is often the case with biographies of living persons I don't think it's dishonest, just an amount of personal enthusiasm). LaMona (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is pretty extensive coverage of his gel, e.g., [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Inventions and research aren't events, they are processes that occur over time, so I don't see WP:BLP1E as applying, but even if it did, this appears to be an important discovery. It also looks like his notability, in part, derives from his accomplishments as such a young age. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:40, 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, Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 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, Deadbeef 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent keep I initially agreed with you, DS, that this seems like a lot of hype over nothing, but it does seem to have gotten a lot of coverage in the lay press. Also seems like this discussion is more related to wp:companies than to wp:med, so i defer to them. BakerStMD T|C 21:13, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Postlethwaite (Director)[edit]

James Postlethwaite (Director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there are a couple of local articles here and here from the same source, there aren't sufficient sources to establish WP:GNG. Moreover, none of there four criteria in WP:DIRECTOR are satisfied perhaps because the article is just WP:TOOSOON. I am One of Many (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find evidence that he is a director, and that he directed Cue, but there is not nearly enough to consider him notable. LaMona (talk) 19:54, 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,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:31, 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, Deadbeef 01:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jain Acharya Vijay Ratnakarsuri[edit]

Jain Acharya Vijay Ratnakarsuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the deletion of this page which describes the life of one of the great ascetics of Jainism. The info given on this page is verifiable and genuine.

Please reconsider your decision to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomin 007 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the provided sources meet our definition of "reliable sources"; they're functionally just blogs. The information appears to be self-contradictory: he's born in Jain year 2001, which Vira Nirvana Samvat seems to suggest to be approximately AD 1475, but he dies in 2014: either that's AD 2014, so he lives 500+ years, or that's Jain year 2014, so he dies at age 13. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 11 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, Deadbeef 01:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -It simply fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Nothing helpful found on Google news, books, HighBeam, JSTOR and WP:INDAFD search engines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:40, 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. No prejudice to anyone who wants to create a redirect at this title. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Law in Domestic Courts Journal[edit]

International Law in Domestic Courts Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New journal that seems not to have published anything yet. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 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, Deadbeef 01:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not decided whether the article should be kept, merged or redirected, only that it should not be deleted. That would require further investigation for which I may not have time. James500 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James500: A reply here would be useful. Deletion is not inconsistent with redirection, btw, as redirection essentially "deletes" the articles and deletion would still allow a redirect to be created. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Philosopher: We only do that if the entire page history (ie each revision individually) satisfies the criteria for revision deletion (WP:REVDEL). Please see WP:R#HARMFUL and criteria 1 of WP:R#KEEP (non-trivial page history). In practice deletion and redirection are mutually exclusive and we do not do what you are proposing unless there are exceptional circumstances. Redirection does not delete an article, it leaves the page history and categories intact. I should point out that my !vote didn't exclude the possibility of merger either. As for "A reply here would be useful": I'm sorry that I didn't reply sooner, but I am rather busy. James500 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we never look at every revision of a page when making a deletion decision, though we may check to see if there was a previous version of the article that lacked the deficiencies under discussion, if relevant. In this case, since notability is under discussion, what previous revisions say is irrelevant unless there is some startling evidence of notability buried in the revision history somewhere. (I checked and there isn't.) Replied to the WP:R stuff below. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete automated redistribution of tables of contents by third parties is not in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is straight from WP:V -- if reliable sources don't discuss a subject, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. Period. And seriously, James500, if you're too busy to investigate an article, you're too busy to have a meaningful opinion on whether it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (Never mind that WP:R doesn't enjoin the article from being deleted, because it's an article, not a redirect.) Nha Trang Allons! 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) This reliable source verfies the existence of the journal. Reliability and independence are not the same thing, and we do sometimes accept sources that are not clearly independent. I don't think it is plausible that a reputable university would invent a fictitious journal. (2) I have investigated to the extent that I have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to justify a redirect. One source is sufficient for that purpose: I do not need to conduct an extensive web search to draw that conclusion. I used the words "further investigation", and it should have been obvious that those words cannot possibly mean that I have not investigated at all. (3) WP:R#HARMFUL and #KEEP must apply to any page that could plausibly be redirected, because it would illogical for it to not apply as this case is a fortiori (ie stronger than the case the guideline provides for). Articles and mainspace redirects are interchangeable. The point is that anyone could boldly redirect that page right now, and, even by your logic, that would immediately bring WP:R into full force. (4) I think that your comments are total nonsense from start to finish and I would be grateful I you don't address me with comments like "And seriously, James500". James500 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously people, what is this nonsense about "the journal verifiably exists"?? Nobody ever claimed that this article was a hoax. It's just that existing is not sufficient to be notable (or even merit a redirect). Can we please keep the discussion on the issue of notability (which is what AfD is about)? James, if you're not a lawyer in Real Life (no need to answer this, of course), you should perhaps consider a career in that direction! Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @James500: I think you may have gotten off-track here. First, as Randykitty points out, no one claimed that this is a hoax, so your #1 doesn't apply - you seem to be looking at WP:DEL-REASON #6, while everyone else is talking about #8. Second "sufficient evidence to justify a redirect" is irrelevant to the discussion, which is whether the article should be deleted. Most potential navigational aids will justify a redirect. Finally, the application of WP:R to this discussion is quite a novel approach to article deletion and policy interpretation, and seems to be quite implausible. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is just complete and utter nonsense. The user who's signature reads "Nha Trang" did incorrectly argue that this topic is unverifiable. The application of WP:R to AfD is standard practice, that normally happens, where the article could plausibly be redirected. I have personally seen it in hundreds of AfDs. It is rarely questioned, and never on plausible grounds. You seem to be arguing is that redirection is not a valid outcome at AfD. That is nonsense. The rubric of AfD says that it is. My reading of WP:R#HARMFUL is that we redirect anything that isn't positively harmful as a redirect, which this isn't. In any event, where a non-notable article is a plausible redirect, redirection (without deletion) is mandated by criteria C1 and C4 of WP:BEFORE and, indeed, by our deletion and editing policies (and especially WP:ATD) which say that improving a page (in this case by redirecting it) is preferable to deleting the page. Plus which, deleting an article and recreating it as a redirect (without page history) would be completely absurd in the absence of some special reason for doing so, and we have a policy against doing things that are absurd (WP:IAR). And strictly speaking we don't delete articles or redirects, we delete pages, because from a technical point of view there is no difference the two: the page deletion user right doesn't distinguish. (On Wikipedia, "deletion" is a term of art that always refers to the use of the page deletion and revision deletion user rights that only admins possess. Redirection is not classified as deletion.) James500 (talk) 22:50, 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. The only keep vote was without arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B'Ginnings[edit]

B'Ginnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed without explanation. Reliable sources to verify notability are lacking; the article is hardly neutral, of course. A list of famous bands (also lacking proper verification) that have played there may well suggest notability, but that's not how it works: we need discussion of the actual place in reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is very good and there is no reason to delete it. It has already been here for years and it was a notable venue. It is simply difficult to dig up a lot of good references for a venue that has not existed for 35 years. Evangp (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can verify the claim of "high profile national press coverage,(Variety, Billboard, Wall Street Journal)". Clubs that get local press are a dime a dozen. Ping me if such coverage can be varified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 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) 01:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'leting: Obviously a labor of love by some fanboy SPAs, but no, this isn't a "very good" article; it's a bit of a namedropping suckfest. The sources run the gamut from casual mentions in interviews to blog posts to JPGs of posters to press releases to personal websites to broken links, but completely lacks (a) reliable sources that (b) describe the subject in any detail at all, never mind "significant" detail, and 35 years after the place closed, I kinda doubt we're seeing any. If the SPAs want to make a tribute Facebook page to the place, bless their hearts, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nha Trang Allons! 14:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP I am a staunch advocate to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Spiffy, we see that, but do you have any actual policy grounds you'd like to cite to support your POV? Nha Trang Allons! 14:39, 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. —Cryptic 13:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batch Premium Gin[edit]

Batch Premium Gin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Looks like just another niche spirit like very many others. No independent refs at all.  Velella  Velella Talk   01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I declined the speedy delete on this as it is not a company. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just created, no available sourcing, seems to be using WP to drum up notability. I disagree that this is out of the scope of "company" as Batch Premium Gin is the sole product of Batch Distillery; the difference is semantic only. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete, but I'd welcome seeing it userfied and then restored when sources are available.
The UK is awash with new boutique gins. A few years ago a new one merely existing might have been enough to encourage inclusion at WP, but no longer. We rightly need reviews in the gin trade press (there is one) and the upmarket hipsterlies. Until that's available, an encyclopedia article on a single brand is premature.
Mind, the idea of paid editing in exchange for gin is becoming attractive 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially an advertisement. If there are adequate refs to be found, an article might eventually be possible. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is an objective and sincere piece on something of note to Winchester and small-scale production movements. Having carefully and thoroughly read criteria and other Wikipedia small industry inclusions it is difficult to see how this differs: with many locally manufactured goods showing no 'Internet Impact' but are present and certainly contributing and locally known and thus are part of that community. Is its stocking in a recognised national retailer of 'note' do you think, OK to mention? Or does that equate to 'advertising'? It is known in pubs and bars in Winchester, is that of 'note' and can that be mentioned? Or is that advertising? Surely the inclusion of any one town's, city's, region's or nation's food and drink is of interest and value, especially when part of a grass roots change in regards to the ownership of the means of production: Which will become a theme in my intended work on Wikipedia. i.e. the advent of 3D printing, small scale production of foods and drinks, etc. Lucian Sma (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Lucian Sma (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley wrote, "The UK is awash with new boutique gins" yet asks for objectivity.Lucian Sma (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like objectivity, but we aren't likely to get it. So instead we fall back to proof by authority, in which case we consider WP:RS to be objective (or at least, more objective than mere editors) and we listen to them. If The Grocer, GQ or even Cereal cover it, then we're happy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's simple, and I'll explain it. Every article has to pass WP:GNG, which holds that a subject needs to be discussed in "significant detail" in multiple, independent, third-party, reliable sources. Whether it's "of note" to Winchester, is locally known, has Internet impact or not, none of that matters. The only thing that does is whether reliable sources -- such as newspapers, books, the BBC and the like -- discuss the subject, and that you can cite those sources. There's no evidence that this product qualifies. Nha Trang Allons! 14:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


So nothing new exists until it is Media-rised? What? How does that even make sense? It doesn't. You too readily raise the shout of 'DELETE' with no core objective other than your own gratification of ' I am right!' Again the Catch 22 aspect of the core philosophy lays exposed. If you really DO need actual people to talk to, I can give you the contact details of a UK national retailer who is taking up this product in their stores. I will not post it here, so please supply me with an email so I can allay your 'fears' of indiscretion on my part. Which I AGAIN assert to be totally unfounded, I am simply posting about a locally based manufacturer in Winchester, UK.[11] QEDLucian Sma (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Lucian Sma (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing new exists until it is Media-rised?
Yes.
That's how we have chosen to work. Please see WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. We have to define some standard, somehow; that's what we've chosen to follow. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that significant discussion of the suitability of this article and related COI issues has been taking place on the article's Talk page at Talk:Batch Premium Gin during this discussion here. I have suggested that such discussion should take place here instead, so that the process can be more coherent, but my suggestion has not been heeded so far. I would copy it here, but I'm not sure it would help (especially since it may further evolve there as well). -BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Nah, it's much better there. All that's there are attempts by the product's owner and SPAs (who claim no COI, but somehow have the ability to get the owner to chime in) to explain why their product should be exempt from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nha Trang Allons! 14:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nha Trang. I also can't find third party, verifiable sources. I agree that the article fails WP:GNG. Lacking a central, editorial board to pass on whether or not articles are to be included in the encyclopedia, we require notability standards, among others, as defined and discussed above. I agree that the solution may be to userfy and hold until the gin becomes notable. It's not there as of now, so it should be deleted. Geoff Who, me? 21:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third party mention: [12] Lucian Sma (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Nope, that doesn't qualify. Check out WP:IRS for the guidelines on what's considered a reliable source or not. Nha Trang Allons! 14:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Aryan[edit]

Raj Aryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. In the references given, one is broken and the other makes no mention of the subject. The remaining one has only a passing mention. Article creator appears to be the subject as well - WP:AUTOBIO. Drm310 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tamil: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Raj Aryan Raj Kumar
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as created by an SPA simply to promote himself, Had this been a newbie I would've happily let it slide but it's obvious this bloke's here for one reason and It's not to improve the 'pedia unfortunately, –Davey2010Talk 04:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't understand. If MichaelQ found good sources, why didn't they go into the article, and why would he say that the subject "may" meet the GNG? Look, either the sources are proven to be there, and the subject meets the GNG, or they're not, and he doesn't. I'm not finding any. Someone comes up with some and puts them in the article, I'll change my vote. Nha Trang Allons! 14:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt, courtesy ping czar ⨹ 22:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar ⨹ 22:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Tour[edit]

West Coast Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NCONCERT TOUR, as there isn't a single independent reliable source, much less the multiples required. While R5 is notable, that does not make each of their tours notable, or indeed any of them. Fan sources are simply not reliable by Wikipedia standards, and this article has two references to a single fan website. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Guye, the MTV Artists site appears to be a place where artists (in this case R5) can post about themselves. This makes it a primary source, not an independent one, and therefore has no bearing on their notability any more than their own website would. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing there that conveys any kind of notable information about the concert tour; it's merely a list of dates. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in any reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA1000 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa de Nikolits[edit]

Lisa de Nikolits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer whose article makes no strong claim of notability that would pass WP:WRITER (the strongest claim here is nominations for literary awards that aren't among the "top national award" class for which a mere nomination would constitute sufficient notability by itself), and citing little to no reliable source coverage to get her past WP:GNG instead. Further, this reads suspiciously like a marketing profile, with distincly unencyclopedic content like a list of every individual public reading she's ever given at any bookstore or library. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can create a good version which cites proper references, but a writer is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she exists, if that article is relying almost entirely on primary sources and directory listings. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (post) @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (interact) @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm seeing enough coverage of her and her works to satisfy WP:GNG. The article relies too much on sources that lack independence, and that should be addressed, but she has reviews in everything from Quill & Quire to Canadian Living and the Huffington Post. I agree with the nominator that the article reads like a marketing bio. That should be improved but it's not overtly promotional so it's no reason to delete it. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 03:49, 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, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 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) 01:32, 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 keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 04:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second Hand Husband[edit]

Second Hand Husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability, not yet released Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
actor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
alts: WP:INDAFD Second Hand Husband Sameep Kang Gippy Grewal Sanjeeda Sheikh
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as there is some evidence it is getting pre-release press. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subhasish Chakraborty[edit]

Subhasish Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a resume. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only way of cleaning this is by throwing in some WP:TNT, Per nom reads like a CV and no evidence of notability. –Davey2010Talk 04:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Fire: Eeesh, I'm all for the dynamite. The sources listed are almost all press releases, passing mentions or quotes from the subject (which according to the GNG explicitly cannot support the notability of the subject). Now maybe there'd be sources that could satisfy the GNG out there, but this is such a self-promotional trainwreck ... leaving aside that it looks like this is the dude's own article. (= User:Subhasishc54) Nha Trang Allons! 14:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Subject may meet WP:BASIC, but the article in its present shape is totally unencyclopedic, such that WP:Blow it up and start over may be only remedy. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_15&oldid=1142626034"