Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 January 3 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 merge to Avatar the Last Airbender. j⚛e deckertalk 06:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Momo (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

Momo (Avatar: The Last Airbender) (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 very minor non-speaking (animal companion) character in a television series. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. All sources cited are primary or series-associated sources, and in view of the character's very subsidiary role (essentially comic relief), substantial third party coverage is not to be expected.  Sandstein  21:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or Merge whatever content is salvageable to respectable articles. Tutelary (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (intone) @ 22:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 22:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge. I think most of Creation and Content is worth keeping somewhere. To be honest, I think overzealous deletion of articles is a bit of a problem. But given everything, if you want a candidate, this would be a good one. Solarbird (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. There isn't much here that speaks directly to Momo. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Avatar the Last Airbender, since most of the article is about the show itself, not Momo directly. Luthien22 (talk) 03:28, 5 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Steeves[edit]

Paulette Steeves (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:PROF by a long way and seems to fail WP:GNG also. There has also been some apparent self-promotion going on, per the edit history, and it seems possible (though not probable) that the biography was in fact created by the subject. There has been some discussion about this person's notability at User_talk:Dougweller#Arch_and_Anth_notability. Sitush (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 22:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) @ 22:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to be a non-notable graduate student. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be an ordinary graduate student. No evidence of notability (as yet). -- 120.23.60.37 (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Found a mention here plus there is a possible source here but overall I don't think there are sufficient sources at this point to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains nothing that establishes notability. A doctoral student with some non notable awards. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A doctoral student, who lacks any sufficiently notable achievements by Wikipedia's standards that are indicated either in the article or stated in her department's web page. The indicated awards are not notable. -- Paul H. (talk) 02:03, 9 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  03:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Diva - 2014[edit]

Miss Diva - 2014 (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)

Advertising and fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources The Banner talk 11:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 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, czar ⨹ 19:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What will likely garner more attention, and create less enthusiasm for these "beauty" editors, is when they stop the bikini line-up in for Miss World in 2015. Aside from what is listed above the article is written horribly and lacks severely in proper sentence structure. The lead introduces the word "CODS". Is that "Coloma Outdoor Discovery School" or "Centre of Obesity and Digestive Surgeries"? The article would need a rewrite because of poor grammar and weasel words ("The glamorous" and "beautiful contestants") so considering all the above it needs to be deleted. Otr500 (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "glamorous" and "beautiful" are not weasel words in this context: they are technical terms for the contestants, who are not ugly, right? -M.Altenmann >t 20:10, 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, Biblioworm 01:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst! 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article contains nothing harmful excessively promotional; a mere stats for the annual event, Miss Diva, which is quite notable in itself. One may suggest to merge it into Miss Diva, but his would be stupid. -M.Altenmann >t 20:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Miss Diva. Well, it seems to be pretty notable and can be merged as @Altenmann: suggested. — CutestPenguinHangout 13:54, 3 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 Comparison of Subversion clients. After several relistings, there's consensus for a merge & redirect to Comparison of Subversion clients. Will one of the people who suggested the merge please carry it out. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSVN[edit]

SmartSVN (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 placed a PROD tag on this article because it was unsourced, but it was removed by an IP without any sources being added, so here we are at AFD. As mentioned, this is an unsourced article. I've looked, but the only sources I can find about this topic are the usual self published blog postings and download site descriptions for niche software, along with a few trivial mentions in books that list SVN clients. I think this article does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartGit, where the version of this software that uses Git as a backend was deleted last year. - MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 14:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSVN is one of many other SVN clients. Why should this article be deleted while similar ones may remain although they are "unsourced" as well:

- mstrap (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC) — mstrap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep – Per mstrap, we can call it niche software, but for developers version control is definitely not a niche application. Just as an exercise, I looked at the sources of all articles in the table in Comparison of Subversion clients.
  1. AnkhSVN: Official website
  2. Cascade (software): Official website
  3. CODESYS: Major IDE, article briefly mentions Subversion as an option (mention is unsourced)
  4. ESvn: Official website, Sourceforge
  5. KDESvn: Official website
  6. PixelNovel Timeline: Passing mention in Photoshop plug-in review, Apple blog
  7. QSvn: Official website
  8. RapidSVN: Blog, official website
  9. SmartSVN: Official website
  10. Subcommander: No article
  11. SVN Notifier: Official website
  12. SVNBreeze: Official website
  13. TortoiseSVN: Official website, SourceForge, plug-in host website
  14. Trac: Official website (many pages), blog
  15. ViewVC: Official website, Sourceforge, Cpan
  16. VisualSVN: Official website, Subversion official website, TortoiseSVN official website
  17. Xcode: Major IDE, article briefly mentions Subversion as a feature (mention is unsourced).

From the looks of it, there is not a single article that meets the nom's RS standards. I think when developers are looking for a tool like an SVN client, they check lists like this, check SourceForge, and visit the official websites. Therefore, we should allow the official website as an RS for information about the tool. Otherwise we'll have to delete the whole article Comparison of Subversion clients, because that is sourced to official websites. I don't think that would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. It's a heavily edited page that gets 400 hits a day. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't notable enough for inclusion and we don't have reliable sources available on which to base an article. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I have added the following paragraph to the article, with sources from Bloomberg and Open Source Magazine: "WANdisco acquired SmartSVN from Syntevo in September 2012 . As of 2012, the software had been adopted by developers across more than 2,500 companies, and was recording more than 10,000 downloads a month.[1] WANdisco is a major corporate sponsor of the Subversion project. In 2009 it hired core Subversion committers, and in 2010 hired Subversion release manager Hyrum Wright to lead its efforts with the Subversion project.[2] The company sponsors an SVN Forum with sections on community news, Subversion, and SmartSVN.[3]" The paragraph doesn't say so, but users include Fortune 500 companies. I think this might be enough to help it pass WP:RS and WP:NSOFTWARE. For the notability of Subversion itself, see Apache Subversion. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Simple repostings of financial reports and press releases (your two new sources, respectively) generally aren't considered to build the case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – OK, I have added the following, based on a review by an unaffiliated hosting service. "In a comparative review of the most popular SVN clients by the Subversion hosting service Assembla, SmartSVN was ranked second overall. It was the only client to receive a rating of five stars for Linux and the only client to receive five stars for both Windows and Mac OS. It was cited for features, ease of use, and documentation.[4]" As for the other cites, I thought the popularity of the software and the fact that the company employs the lead developers of the standard would be relevant to notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mead, Nick. "SmartSVN: Graphical client for Subversion". Softonic.com. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      SmartSVN is a graphical client for Subversion (SVN) which is an Open Source version control system.

      SmartSVN is aimed mainly at professionals that need a reliable, efficient and well-supported SVN client for their daily business. SmartSVN is cross platforms running on all major platforms and makes common SVN operations much easier such as switching to another branch and other complex tasks.

      SmartSVN works from it's own user interface or from directly within Windows Explorer and includes an SVN client, file comparer, conflict solver and SSH client meaning there's no need for external tools. The main payoff of SmartSVN for companies is increased productivity and a streamlined workflows that save time so that licensing costs pay off quickly.

      SmartSVN is a highly technical application that only those that use Subversion will really appreciate.

      I consider this source reliable. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 101#Softonic.com.
    2. ActionScript3.0ライブラリ入門. Shoeisha. 2012-09-12. pp. 17–19. ISBN 9784798130163. Retrieved 2014-12-26. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
    3. "Smart move from WANdisco as it buys software application". The Yorkshire Post. 2012-09-18. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
    4. "City software firm in $1 million acquisition". Sheffield Star. 2012-09-18. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.
    5. Stansberry, Glen (2009-03-10). "Ultimate Round-Up For Version Control with Subversion". Smashing Magazine. Archived from the original on 2014-12-26. Retrieved 2014-12-26.

      The article notes:

      SmartSVN

      SmartSVN is another cross-platform SVN client, but targeted more at professional developers. The client comes in free and professional versions, with the professional version starting at $79 USD.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SmartSVN to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst! 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, etc. Only one of the three keep !votes is based in any policy at all, but I disagree that the sources come anywhere close to GNG/NSOFT. Regarding comments by mstrap and Margin1522, the standards for reliable sourcing are not the nominator's; they are common to all of Wikipedia (click that link). Primary sources simply do not count to establish notability. That other articles exist with similar problems does not mean this should be kept, but may mean others should be deleted if they don't meet standards for notability and reliable sourcing. That something is useful is likewise an argument to keep as lots of things are useful to different people and we need a measure somewhat more objective than that to determine what subjects to include. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also consider Cascade (Software), Esvn, ... for deletion. We can delete these individual articles but still list the clients in Comparison of Subversion clients -- just because articles on the individual pieces of software are insignificant and non-verifiable does not mean that a list of them is inappropriate. Per WP:CSC, we can make a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" Piboy51 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @Rhododendrites: That's not quite the argument I was making. I'm familiar with GNG and PSTS. My problem with many invocations of GNG in AfD discussions is that they lack a rationale and are essentially "I'm not interested." We have GNG standards because interpretive claims and analysis should be based on secondary sources rather than OR. My point was that primary sources "can be reliable and useful in certain situations" (WP:WPNOTRS). A list of the features in a software app is one of those situations. There is no analysis involved, no claims about third parties, nothing likely to be challenged. That's my point and it applies to content. As for notability, consider indie films. Most indie films are never reviewed in the New York Times. But some of them are, so it's not unreasonable to say that an indie film needs coverage in the NYT or another mainstream publication to be notable. But the NYT never reviews SVN clients. They are not of "general interest" in the domain of national newspapers. But they are of general interest in the domain of software development. What we need is coverage in that domain that is as objective as what you would find in the NYT if it did review SVN clients. I found a source in this domain that reviewed this software in some depth, making interpretive claims and calling it one of the best and most popular applications in the category. If that's not enough, I guess I'll just have to accept it. The decision is up to whoever closes this discussion. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @Rhododendrites: I'm arguing from a software developer perspective who is primarily dealing with version control systems (and less experienced with Wikipedia guidelines): when searching for a (Subversion client) software in a pool of many small software products, Wikipedia is a welcome source to get an overview of which applications are available and to get some dispassionate information on them. In this way, the list at Comparison of Subversion clients is very helpful and (at least for me) it's on Google position #2 for search terms "svn clients" and position #5 for search terms "svn client". The individual articles might not be as helpful as this comparison, but are still a good place to collect basic information which won't be easy to locate on the official websites, especially the commercial ones with all the marketing blah blah. Interestingly, the situation is different for Git which is comparable to SVN in audience and popularity. I couldn't find a similar comparison of client software, probably caused by the fact that the official Git website already delivers this information: http://git-scm.com/downloads/guis . Also, you won't find individual Wikipedia articles for many of the tools listed there (I've searched for "GitHub for Mac", "SourceTree", "SmartGit", "Tower (disambiguation)", "GitEye"). So, there is some kind of imbalance. My vote to resolve these issues would be to either (i) allow individual articles for all available tools (for SVN, Git and all other VCS) for which there is evidence that these tools are used by a reasonable number of users, i.e. are not just 'experimental', or (ii) to get rid of all individual articles. – mstrap (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – I agree this does not yet seem notable enough for its own article but it seems to be notable enough as a product of WANdisco to at least move applicable content there. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Comparison of Subversion clients. The various source control systems (git, hg, svn, etc, etc) are interesting and deserve articles. But individual clients do not. There's dozens of clients for each system. They all basically do the same thing. Covering the minor differences between the multitude of clients is adequately handled by a Comparison of <whatever> clients article for each system. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Comparison of Subversion clients. Article prose makes no extraordinary claim that raises it above any of the other Subversion Clients. Hasteur (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  03:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss United Continent[edit]

Miss United Continent (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 beauty contest. No independent reliable sources. Nothing obvious in google Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have been deleting articles about non-notable modelling contests. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 23 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, Michig (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arfæst! 19:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment gets a fair amount of coverage in reliable newspapers Times of India, Indian Express etc., more if one searches in Spanish, El Comercio, El Universo. Nothing in any books yet. --Bejnar (talk) 05:16, 5 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latu Fifita[edit]

Latu Fifita (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 rugby league player who fails WP:RLN. Contested prod on the basis that he plays for Workington Town, but there's no evidence he's actually played a game for them. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page can be created if he plays in the Championship. Mattlore (talk) 03:36, 3 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Storm at Elingale[edit]

The Black Storm at Elingale (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:NB; I can't find any coverage in secondary sources, nor any information about the alleged publisher Imagine It. Possibly self-published. Blackguard 18:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NBOOK. No secondary coverage at all. The all of seven reader reviews at Amazon are impressive, but they all seem to be from around Baltimore, where the author hangs out; they may not all be independent. No review in Publishers Weekly. Given the listed publisher, indicates self-published. Reading a sample of the text the grammar and dialogue are much better than average. --Bejnar (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sometimes self-published books are notable, but it's a huge, uphill battle. I don't see any indication on Google that there's coverage in reliable sources. If someone can locate reviews, then the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I just can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable or has received reviews in reliable sources - Amazon reviews can't be used to show notability, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 6 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After Love (novel)[edit]

After Love (novel) (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 book by a non-notable author. No sources provided other than the author's Facebook page. It's not blatant advertising, and there's no CSD category like A9 for books. However, this clearly fails both WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, no coverage in secondary reliable sources. No listing at WorldCat. No Publishers Weekly review. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion for unpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:16, 5 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramdas Palsule[edit]

Ramdas Palsule (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)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see the person is notable so article should be kept. The editor seem new to Wikipedia who is copy pasting content from other site. He/She should be informed about copyright violation and how to/what to add in Wikipedia. I agree for removal of copyvio text from article ASAP. -Nizil (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With this edit I have removed the most obvious copyvio passage and will suggest that the author rewrites it. No opinion on notability, but anyone considering it should look at this version before my cut. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Having written about in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, subject meet the Wikipedia's inclusion standard ([1]). Majority of the sources, however are in Hindi and Marathi language. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now well referenced. If copy violations are resolved, should be kept. GOCE work should help if kept.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 8 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanush 30[edit]

Dhanush 30 (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)

Unreferenced upcoming film with no indication of significance. May have been created WP:TOOSOON, I propose a soft delete. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Soft delete per TOO SOON. I narrowed my search parameters to eliminate those about the producer's 30 birthday or lists of 30 films. It seems it is in pre-production and casting, and the title may not be 100%. Allow a WP:REFUND when filming is confirmed and it gets coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -fails WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:38, 6 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Franta[edit]

Connor Franta (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 a procedural nomination. The article was tagged for speedy delete per A7. Although I rarely see a new article about a YouTuber that should be kept, in this instance, I thought the article had more claims of significance and even sources to back up those claims, so I declined it.

The article, though, had a strange title: "Connor Franta (Connor)". I checked to make sure that an article with the title "Connor Franta" didn't exist, and I moved it.

Apparently, I wasn't cynical enough because there was an article called Connor Franta that had previously been deleted (I didn't check the revision history of the title). In fact, it had been deleted seven times per A7, and it had been salted. Obviously, I was in a minority, and if I seen that, I probably would have acted differently.

I'm not in favor of now speedy deleting it after the fact because my judgment hasn't changed. However, I think whether it's notable should be brought before the community for a discussion. It will also mean that the notability of the subject will have had a fuller airing in case the consensus is delete and it is again recreated. Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but reluctantly. I personally think that most articles about "famous" bloggers and YouTube stars and such should go, but this person has quite a bit of coverage. For example, take a look at the results that a Google search turned up (if you notice, there's several well-respected news sites there). So, I think this narrowly passes WP:GNG. --Biblioworm 00:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am quite sick, personally, of the general Wikipedian anti-ness of Youtubers, given these people are reaching audiences 'mainstream' websites and bloggers of old never reached, yet are 'notable'. Someone really needs to write a more sensible set of notability guides for YouTubers. Anyway, getting off my soap box - Connor Franta has over 3 million subscribers. Thanks for at least bringing this to AfD. Definitely doesn't fall into A7 since it does make a claim of notability, the popularity of one of his videos. That claim could definitely be seen as real enough given the news was featured in Out, MTV, BusinessInsider Huffington Post, Queerty and E! Online. He has had other past coverage as well, such as the TubeFilter and Guardian articles used in the article, BusinessInsider article in September and an AdWeek coverage. Coverage like this is everywhere. [2], [3], [4]. JTdaleTalk~ 01:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those articles I would say that he is indeed notable, though it's worth noting that the number of subscribers he has is largely irrelevant. See WP:NUMFRIENDS. DiscantX (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this post is actually about a famous Youtube person he has been recognised by many respected websites and newspapers. and i understand that this was previously created by many fans which was deleted. but now it is very well reference and has a neutral tone. i don't see any violation--Akdo121 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Akdo121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Keep - I think this page should be kept because when i created this page i knew all the requirements for creating a wikipedia page of anyone. this person Connor Franta i a well recognisable person who has been written about in well respected newspaper such as [[The Huffington Post] and Dailymail. I am also aware that alot of people has been trying to create a Wikipedia page for this person and those people are probably his fans. i see no violation of Wikipedia's guideline and therefore this should be kept--Laxide13 (talk) 01:31, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep – Based on the articles provided by User:JTdale, he probably meets notability, although it seems (without reading every one of those articles) that the main thing he is notable for is coming out. The article should focus primarily on that, in my opinion. And those sources should be added to the article, since the only reliable source I see there at present is from The Guardian (famousbirthdays and tubefilter do not appear to be reliable sources. I'm not sure about entrepreneur.com as I can't get it to load). DiscantX (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article loads easily when I click on it. I use Firefox, if that matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it's my internet connection. A couple of pages are going slow for me. I just meant I can't personally verify it, not that the page doesn't exist. Cheers! DiscantX (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a feeling that Entrepreneur would be reliable, but I wasn't sure. TubeFilter still seems like a pretty low-quality tabloid style blog to me, but as I am unfamiliar with it I'll defer to you. Just out of curiosity though, what exactly is it that makes it reliable? Other than being cited in a few instances by sources that I would consider reliable, it seems to be a largely opinion-based blog. Is there precedent for using them as a source on Wikipedia that you are aware of? DiscantX (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After reviewing the article and its sources again, I have to change my mind about this. Though there is some evidence of notability mentioned on this AfD, it a) Doesn't exist in the article and b) Doesn't seem to warrant a page here. This article is entirely promotional and appears to have been created and edited almost entirely by fans of the subject, who are not neutral. Nearly no claims of notability have been made past how many friends he has and that he had a YouTube video that went viral about him coming out. As well, this AfD appears to have recieved the attention of some of his fans, either as a result of Canvassing or simply because of their loyalty as (non-neutral) fans. I have removed many of the sources listed for this article for reasons I listed on its talk page.  DiscantX 01:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suppose. Franta has a sizable YouTube following, his coming-out received heavy media attention, and several other so-called "YouTubers" have articles (some of which have less "subscribers" than Franta). I see no other option, in keeping with Wikipedia notability standards, but to keep. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not convinced that the "15 minutes of fame" is not just temporary. "Significant coverage" is somewhat confusing, as a lot of newspapers/news agencies/tv stations have carried pretty much clones of a few "spotlight" articles. Newsworthy does not mean "has to have a stand alone Wikipedia Article". Could be part of a larger "group" type article, maybe "viral quasi celebrities". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotWillyWonka (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete May be notable in the future, but the sources provided are all about him coming out as gay, which seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. — kikichugirl speak up! 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell all of the sources are about a single event - a video about him coming out as gay. As above, per WP:BLP1E, I'd suggest we Delete for now. If he gets another 15 mins of fame, then we can re-evaluate then. I would remind other commenters that this isn't about other articles or youtubers - this is about this one. SQLQuery me! 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG DOCUMENT★ERROR 09:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Moved here by --Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources seem legit and i know mr Franta he has quite a large fan base. and have many respected news link about him.--Uooss (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)— Uooss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - i say we keep this article Connor Franta i a recognisable person with a huge following on Youtube,Twitter and other social media he has made music, Films, Book,etc and the person who has written the article has use reliable source to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfonsa1 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Alfonsa1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. I have struck the comments above of four accounts, including the creator of the article, that have been confirmed and blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Franta became notable person not only for his coming out, he is a stable part of American YouTube community and so I think Wikipedia should mention those people. The article seems to have reliable sources.--Mirkotor (talk) ,22:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: definitley. Connor Franta deserves page just as much as one is needed, becuse he is youtube famous. he has over 3 milllion subscribers and is nearing 4 million subscribers on his youtube channel. This isnt a 15 minutes of fame thing, this is an actual fame thing. He is a vlogger, youtuber personality and having a wikipedia page is necessary. Its necessary for people to be able to google him and have a little window show up the search results with a a picture, small bio and necessary information like his age and occupation.connor franta is well known throughout the internet and youtube community, so when he is mentioned and someone doesent know who he is it is extremely necessary and convenient to have that information pop up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.230.2 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confused, if you "Google" his name, and those things show up, then maybe he should have a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, not the other way around. Also See WP:NOT.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't understand why many Youtubers aren't considered notable enough. A simple Google search brings up 9,340,000 results, which is pretty large. I reckon it passes WP:Notability. AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    However only 1,930 of those are "news" results, mostly just the "same" article "published" in multiple outlets. (aka AP copy). Also, "google hits" does not indicate "notability", Elbridge Gerry only gets 373,000 when doing a google search, so should we remove his page from wikiepedia? Heck if we go just on google hits, and compare just that with Elbridge Gerry, I should have a wikipedia page, I get as many google hits. --NotWillyWonka (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, my bad. "Connor Franta" in quotes brings up 647,000 results, but that's still a lot. As for notability, he has got "sufficiently significant attention" by the media through "independent sources" as some people have provided above. Even if it's mostly due to his recent coming out video, he has received a lot of coverage. I still think we should keep the article. AB01 I'M A POTATO 08:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This Page should be kept because Connor is a huge inspiration to many people especially in this generation. One of his latest videos " Life Doesn't Wait" had a big effect on many young people. Nowadays kids aren't reading books and learning poetry as much as they are on youtube searching up YouTubers!! Connor is using this as an advantage to share and explain what kids are missing on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadwa 2002 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available. Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust, and that commenting on other users rather than the article is also considered disruptive. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 16:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I largely concur with Biblio's sentiments. Seems like enough direct coverage in RS to call this a keep. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an afterthought; re User:JTdale's comments. This AfD does smack a little of "anti-Tuber's"ness. NickCT (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As yet another afterthought; I'm not sure the WP:BLP1E argument holds much water. I'm seeing coverage which extends outside his having "come out" on the internet. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 2 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Different (NC.A song)[edit]

I'm Different (NC.A 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 seems to fail WP:GNG. It was a promotional single by NC.A performed on "all music shows" (in the world??), but the article offers no evidence of the latter claim. It charted poorly and received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only links are to record charts. Information about this artist's releases can be located on her article until she releases something that generates significant chart placement and coverage in independent, reliable sources. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a very sparse page. song is not independently notable Asdklf; (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to WP:NSONGS, song charting alone is no longer considered to be notable. There is no other notable information--TerryAlex (talk) 05:55, 4 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baby (NC.A song)[edit]

Hello Baby (NC.A 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 seems to fail WP:GNG. It was released as a digital single by NC.A, and the article claims it was performed on "the music shows" (what music shows?) but offers no evidence of such. Song charted poorly and there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The only links are to record charts. Article has not been improved since a request for references was made in April 2014. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again a very sparse page. not independently notable Asdklf; (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shinyang-i's argument - no notability for its own article.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Charting alone is not enough for NSONG. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 3 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo Hoo Hoo[edit]

Hoo Hoo Hoo (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 was released (digitally?) as a stand-alone release but not promoted on any music shows. There is no evidence it charted on any of Korea's music charts. There is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent media. The only source listed is the artist's own website. All information can be covered on the artist's article, if need be. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon (NC.A song)[edit]

Coming Soon (NC.A 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 has not been released yet (as of 2015.01.02). Song has not received any coverage in reliable, independent sources. The one source is a link to the artist's youtube video via allkpop. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 2 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. SpinningSpark 23:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Harare[edit]

Embassy of Tanzania, Harare (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:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. and some have been previously deleted. note there is also no bilateral relations article to redirect this to. Also nominating for the same reasons (consulates are even less notable):

LibStar (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – the articles can surely be expanded. They are marked as stub articles at present. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you have presented no argument for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello AfricaTanz. I'd like to ask you, out of all the active discussions out there, what made you choose this one in particular? Or was it because you keep an eye out for my most recent edits? I'd like to know your (honest) answer. Do you have anything against my contributions on Wikipedia? For the kind attention of the Administrators; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. This IP is a suspected sock of AfricaTanz. Ali Fazal (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crystal-ball-gazing and hoping that these articles might be expanded if/when the subjects become notable isn't a valid reason for keeping them. Why are they notable, what are they notable for? In these cases either the embassy (the institution) or the embassy (the building itself) could be notable but none of them seem seem to be notable in either way. Mergers to relevant "x - x relations" articles (where the relationships are notable) might be okay. St★lwart111 03:01, 17 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, Mr.Z-man 03:14, 24 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, Deadbeef 05:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all not adequately sourced and embassy or consulate buildings are not inherently notable. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect all, in favor of various redirect targets, unless and until sources establishing notability of individual embassies are provided (which may occur). For example the Consulate General of Burundi, Kigoma should probably be merged/redirected to List of diplomatic missions of Burundi, a list-article whose notability is not questioned. And the 3 Tanzanian embassy ones should be merged/redirected to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania. As noted by User:Stalwart111, any these could be also be merged/redirected to relevant "Country A - Country B relations" type articles, such as Burundi - Tanzania relations, which has been done for a large number of embassy articles brought to AFD previously. Best to save the edit histories at the redirects and to move/create the relevant articles sooner rather than later. We don't need to keep seeing new AFDs. Almost any editor (but not me due to an editing restriction) can just move any such embassy article to a new "Country A - Country B relations" article, or merge it to a pre-existing article of that type, if a more specific target such as List of diplomatic missions of Burundi is not already available. Topics of the "bilateral relations" type are almost surely notable. No one should get "credit" for racking up deletions on the embassy articles; the general resolution for these that is appropriate has been established already. --doncram 00:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As in other cases, I'd have no problem with redirecting. Having looked at it, I don't think merging to new "x -x relations" articles is a great option in this instance, few of the relationships being notable in this instance. No point merging to newly created articles, only to delete those almost immediately. But list articles make for great redirect targets and I would support that wherever appropriate. St★lwart111 08:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This would have been a clear cut delete, but the merge proposal has left me unsure on this one. More discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in original nomination. Not notable by virtue of being diplomatic missions. Per WP:GEOFEAT any of particular significance may be notable for various reasons, but this must be supported in secondary sources. Merge idea is a fair solution, but there is little to merge except that the entities exist. No prejudice to any editor adding sourced entries to an existing list class article; however, anything more still requires secondary sourcing. Bellerophon talk to me 00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These stubs appear to be procedurally built from a specific format and similar "procedurally built" articles have been the point of contention in the community. If and when the advocate for these pages can make a good justification for inclusion, it would be wise to send them through a review process (such as AFC) to review that the page is reasonably compliant with WP policy/guidelines/best practices. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The rational solution is to merge to a list. There's enough information for that ,and more can be added. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. NORTH AMERICA1000 04:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force 1-41[edit]

Task Force 1-41 (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 are several concerns here. Firstly I doubt the task force is notable. Two of the given references do not mention it at all, the other two only in passing, and I haven't been able to find better references. Secondly, the current content is largely unverifiable, based on the personal memory of an erstwhile member of the task force, and contains numerous inaccuracies and outright errors. It's also non-neutral, one-sidedly praising the unit's heroism while completely omitting other aspects, such as the various friendly fire incidents that made the unit suffer one in seven deaths by friendly fire among all US forces in the Gulf War. Given the inaccuracies I'm aware of, confirmed by the sources given in the article itself and a paper authored by the task force's commanding officer, I am reluctant to blindly accept as fact those parts I couldn't independently verify - and removing those parts would gut the article to the point of uselessness. For those reasons I propose redirecting the page to the parent unit, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) (which, by the way, also was the parent unit of Task Forces 1-41 in various other conflicts that, for all I can tell, are unrelated to the one covered in the article). I implemented the redirect twice, with detailed explanations of these concerns, and was twice reverted without any improvement. Per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here. Huon (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some adjustments to the article. Yet, on the Valorous Unit Award Citation all of the TF Iron Units mentioned were indeed listed as being assigned to TF 1-41. So it also depends on the particular reference cited. Don Brunett (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect as this makes more sense as part of the parent unit. Also agree that fixing the article would gut it. BoonDock (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Creating a 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article would be a superior outcome than redirecting to the article on the regiment. With a handful of exceptions, US infantry regiments no longer serve as "parent units" for battalions - the naming structure has been kept to preserve history, but there are no longer many regimental HQs. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a further comment, from digging into some sources the current content of this article conflates the battalion-size Task Force 1-41 with its parent brigade (designated Task Force Iron during the war). I've pinged the article creator to ask which formation they intended the article to cover. At present, I'm leaning towards keep as I've been able to dig up some significant coverage of the battalion and the brigade (based around the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division) should clearly be notable. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article regards a notable military unit different from 1-41.User:Lucifero4
  • I've been asked to comment by Nick-D. Task Force 1st of the 41st Infantry, solely in its 1990-91 Gulf War service, is unquestionably notable. There will be acres of reliable sources available if people are willing to go beyond the internet (especially because of the "friendly fire" incident, which is another reason not to delete some mention of the unit that suffered it). To pull one book off my shelves, Dinackus's Order of Battle: Allied Ground Forces of Desert Storm, lists its company-company composition on page 4A-8, and as part of the 1st Inf Div (Mech) (3rd Bde, 2nd Armd filled in for the missing third bde of 1 ID(M) during the war) on page 4A-10. Much of the 'unverifiable' content can be verified by Lt Col Hillman's article, like TF Iron's first breech, which can seen on Hillman p.6. Using Hillman, and a few of the other sources, anyone willing to do the work could write a crackerjack article on a U.S. heavy battalion task force in Desert Storm. Given this, the best course of action is to merge the WP:V content with another article, which could be expanded at a later date. Depending on the length, it should be placed either in the existing 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article, in the proper chronological order (which is the standard way of making sure such content can be found later), or we can consider creating a separate 1-41 INF article. So my vote would be Keep. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have provided significant enough information to present my case that this was indeed a notable temporary unit. It breached the initial Iraqi defensive entrenchments. It was the first coalition unit to enter enemy territory. TF 1-41 was so valuable that it had the support of U.S. Army Special Forces and at least one brigade of the British 1st Armoured Division. It was also the only TF which earned a Valorous Unit Award. Don Brunett (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
    • Unfortunately Don, while I do not disagree with your vote, you are incorrect - as far as my sources go - about awarding of the VUA. Dinackus writes that '..virtually every manoeuvre battalion in the 1st and 3rd Armored Divisions, 1st Inf Div (M), and 2 ACR received the VUA,' as well as 'six of the ten VII Corps manoeuvre brigade headquarters that saw substantial combat against the Republican Guard received the VUA in contravention of the spirit, if not the letter, of AR672-5-1's guidance that '[o]nly on rare occasions will a unit larger than a battalion qualify for award of the VUA.' Both the entire 210th Field Artillery Brigade and 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigades received the VUA - Brigade HHBs and all battalions (Dinackus 2000, 14-4 & 14-5). Dinackus strongly implies that the VUA was awarded more than it should have been, and explicitly argues that awarding of the VUA varied according to formation, but there is no doubt that it was handed out widely after Desert Storm. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinackus is entitled to his opinion even if I don't agree with him.Don Brunett (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
    • His is not 'an opinion'. He cites the DAGOs, frequently. The VUA went to many, many, battalion task forces after Desert Storm, not just Task Force 1-41 Infantry. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buckshot I also wanted to clarify that the VUA's for the other units were not listed specifically as being awarded to a particular Task Force. They were listed mostly on brigade level from what I read. It really does not matter as 7th Corps destroyed the world's 4th largest army in a week. Most were deserving of the award, imo. I am critical of some of these air artillery units receiving the award as Iraq had little air support.Don Brunett (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
    • The point is they were awarded. IMO, three of the last four MOH winners did not deserve that particular award as well. We all have opinions. Did you serve Buckshot? If not your opinion means little to those of us who did.Don Brunett (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
    • I should clearly note for anyone else reading this that my note above about the VUA in no way reduces the validity of this article or article contents on Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is getting a bit off-topic, but the US Army's Center of Military History does list a large number of units as having received VUAs during the war (including other "front line" battalion task forces): [5]. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but a lot people are crossing some boundaries.--Don Brunett (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
      • Thank you for your kind words Don. Should you wish to keep getting support from people who do actually support the retention of this article, you might wish to consider reading WP:NPA. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies. Just frustrated.Don Brunett (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Keep) I think it is bogus that this has been relisted. It's obvious most are in support of this remaining. I'm done debating and you are very close to losing any financial support you had from me. I mean a German administrator made this decision? LOL! My article has more correct information than half the articles on Wiki and from multiple sources to boot. Don Brunett (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett[reply]
Relisting is pretty routine, towards seeking more views, and AFDs are pretty slow processes. Also practice in Articles For Deletion process is to only "vote" once, so I changed "Keep" to "Comment" instead, for you, hope you don't mind. Oh, "Voting" does not restart after a relisting. And you are free to comment repeatedly. --doncram 17:49, 5 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  02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeung Lai Chuen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeung Lai Chuen (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)

Relisting as requested by participants at the DRV SpinningSpark 09:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Searching on gbooks under the Chinese characters rather than the English transliteration finds 32 book results. I can't read any of them, but some of them look like they have something substantive to say. In addition, there is,
    • [6] (Taiping Institute) which has about 670 words of prose on him
    • [7] (Global Pak Mei Martial Arts Association - in Chinese) has about 840 words of prose on him (after running through a machine translation)
    • [8] (New York Pak Mei Kung Fu Cultural Preservation Association) has about 750 words of prose on him
    • [9] (Shing Tak Tong - Pak Mei Sam Choi Kung Fu Association - in Chinese) has a non-trivial discussion of him
    • naamkyun.com says "... it is unquestionably acknowledged that Pak Mei Paai is a system of kung fu that was formally developed and organized by Master Cheung Lai Chuen (宗師張禮泉) at the turn of the 20th Century." [10]
    • pakmeipai.nl says "Pak Mei Pai founder Cheung Lai Chun (張禮泉宗師) has been responsible for the development and popularization of Pak Mei Boxing." [11]
    • [12] (Simon Lui Pak Mei Athletic Association of Colorado) has an 1800 word article "History of The Pak Mei Clan", which is largely about Jeung Lai Chuen
...and now I've started looking for sources, I realise I did not really need to limit myself to Chinese language book sources. Books and magazines found using English terms include;
    • Black Belt magazine, April 1981 [13] devotes hundreds of words to the person in an article about Pak Mei
    • He appears in the index of Kung Fu: Martial Art and Combat Sport [14] and there appears to be a substantial piece on him, from snippet view "The first Grandmaster of white eyebrow in Southern China was Cheung Lai Chuen. He learned the system from a monk named Jok Fat who bad been given permission by his Sifu Jong Wei to teach the art if he could find someone worthy."

SpinningSpark 09:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above references have been added to the article (not inline) and I copied the relevant biographical information from the Bak Mei article. The references still suffer from the fact that they are mainly primary but they seem to indicate that the subject was the main formulator of the system (not its semi-legendary name sake) and hence more important that just another cog in the wheel. I do not expect vast coverage of the individual in a non-sporting style. I am still not sure that a Redirect is not the best option - not even sure Bak Mei is a notable style (its own article has issues) but I think now a more informed debate can continue.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not primary, that is a silly criticism. Some can perhaps be criticised for not being peer reviewed scholarly papers, but publications by a club or sports association on history of a sport does not amount to primary. Primary sources would be sources written by Jeung Lai Chuen himself or contemporary correspondence with him or a contemporary witness to events in his life. SpinningSpark 14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary is a pretty relative term - these are organizations writing about themselves and their origins. Call it what you will there is a dearth of independent sources for either the subject or his style which leaves the question is he a founder of a notable style - something that would meet WP:MANOTE. For WP:GNG I would think you need more than club websites.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how you can come to that conclusion when there are hundreds of books covering Pak Mei, including this one that says "There is a thriving civilian Pak Mei tradition in southern China, largely due to the teaching efforts of Chang Lai-chuen (1880-1964)." And you do not even need to try different transliterations to get that result, "Bak Mei" also gets book results in the hundreds. Mostly, these books don't have preview, but I simply cannot accept that there is not enough material there to meet Wikipedia requirements for anyone who wants to get down a library and do the research. SpinningSpark 17:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is the problem with using a semi-legendary name as your purported origin. Several styles, claim origin to Bak Mai, not just the one founded by the subject and to make things more difficult the name has become part of popular culture complete with movies and books. A similar situation would be for example Ninja styles in Japanese martial arts especially what we see in the West. That one source you pointed out is from the true shaolin temple based in Oregon - sorry that raises red flags. You seem to want to force me into a position I have not taken - all I am saying showing notability is difficult to the point where I find it difficult to decide the best course.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic because this discussion is not about the Bak Mei article, but your statements that "several styles, claim origin to Bak Mai" and "the name has become part of popular culture" speak for notability, not detracts from it. My point was that anything that has books written on it in the many hundreds cannot possibly not be notable. The fact that some of them are written by practitioners does not detract from that any more than most books on physics are written by physicists. As for your comparison with ninja, I rest my case, that is unarguably notable and none of the points you raise would detract from that in the slightest. The truth of the relationship of Cheung to Bak Mei is not really relevant to settling this AFD. That sources talk about him in relation to Bak Mei is the only thing that is of importance here. SpinningSpark 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly off topic but my point is that using a name that is notable does not make you notable - there are no styles that can claim an unbroken lineage to Bak Mai (the person) and it is not even sure "White Eyebrows" existed. I never said the term Bak Mai (or Ninja) were not notable just questioned whether Jeung Lai Chuen is the founder of a notable style (which like several unrelated others like to claim a legendary origin). Searching for Bak Mai to establish his notability is to use your term - silly - it just doesn't discriminate enough. Does he meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG that is all I am questioning. By the by nothing I am saying contradicts the Bak Mei article.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources honestly aren't the best as many aren't truly independent of the subject (they are from folks that practice the style he created if I read them correctly) and even the Black Belt article looks to be poor. It would be best to build the article using sources that are more independent where available. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spinningspark's numerous sources and my comment at the previous AfD:

    *Keep. Here are two sources about the subject:

    1. Martineau, Jr., Danny (2013). The Waterfront. Xlibris Corporation. p. 102. ISBN 978-1493147649. Retrieved 2015-01-01.

      The book notes:

      ...and a rare book called Pak Mei Kung Fu: White Eyebrow by H. B. Un. I purchased the book on sale for fewer than fifty dollars; it now sells for over eighty bucks online! Therein lies the story of Great Grand Master Cheung Lai Chuen, who in his youth was defeated in friendly combat by a Buddhist monk named Lin Sang. When Lin Sang would no teach him kung fu, Cheun Lai sought out Lin Sang's teacher Joke Fat Wan. After much persistency, Joke Fat taught Cheung Lai Pak Mei kung fu.

      Joke Fat was a third-generation sifu and student of Gwong Wei, who was the sole student of Pak Mei, himself founder of the art. Pak Mei was one of the five legendary survivors of the Southern Shaolin Temple that had been destroyed. The book goes on to tell how Cheung Lai Chuen rose to become the Great Grand Master and once defended himself against a town of fifty men. After speaking of much form and technique, H. B. Un concludes the book with a piece of wisdom: fighting is dangerous and should be avoided!

      This source indicates that the subject has received significant coverage in the book Pak Mei Kung Fu: White Eyebrow.
    2. The subject is also mentioned here.

    It is highly likely that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    It would be Wikipedia:Systemic bias to delete this article about a notable Chinese martial artist when there is likely significant coverage about the subject in offline non-English sources, which are permitted per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Citing non-English sources.

    Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

    Cunard (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Link to the deletion review that led to this relist: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 1#Jeung Lai Chuen. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 3 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. NorthAmerica1000 09:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamland (2014 film)[edit]

Dreamland (2014 film) (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)

Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but no indication that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. I prodded this and it had been uncontested for 6 days. Hell in a Bucket then removed the prod to add a speedy deletion tag, but it did not meet the criteria for that, and as the prod was removed, it cannot be reapplied, so I am bringing it here. Tagged for notability by C.Fred, twice the tags were removed by creator.

Username of the creator indicates WP:COI, also (seems to be director Xhulio Joka), and the creator has only edited WP to create two articles, both on films by Xhulio Joka. Another editor to this page, Imdbfilms, has been swiftly blocked for spamming, and had only edited two articles, this one, and Imdbfilms created an article on the filmmaker, Xhulio Joka, which has twice been deleted. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite a polished-looking (legit? guessing they don't have the rights to that music) trailer on Youtube, I can't avoid the impression that this was shot on a smartphone and run through Deshaker.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No references, and can't find any. No claim of notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for now per failing WP:NF. Apparently this is the second of Xhulio Joka's two film efforts, and like the first has not received coverage and in lacking coverage we lack notability. If it gets some, even if only Albanian media, the author may ask for WP:REFUND to be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q. 11:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yo may wish to also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditari i Ëndrrave, the AfD for the other film by this filmmaker. Boleyn (talk) 14:09, 3 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) Deadbeef 10:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ISIL takeover of Derna[edit]

2014 ISIL takeover of Derna (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)

Nominating remaining not-yet-deleted entries created by indefinitely-blocked editor, as are listed here, in accordance with consensus not to lend legitimacy to ISIS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I really appreciate the thought behind your nomination, and I prompted the deletion of most of the banned editors articles myself, but this one was worked into a useful article that is not named in a way that promotes ISIL. Please consider withdrawing the nomination. Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Removed.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 09:27, 2 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 wrong venue. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 22:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya[edit]

2014 ISIL Expansion in Eastern Libya (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)

Nominating remaining not-yet-deleted entries created by indefinitely-blocked editor, as are listed here, in accordance with consensus not to lend legitimacy to ISIS. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 07:15, 2 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Radusinovic[edit]

Igor Radusinovic (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)

Havent played in any professional league. Failed WP:GNG. Could be notable though in February if he plays for Barito in the Indonesia Super League. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Simply being a member of a professional team does not make you notable. --Biblioworm 00:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete. In february he will played. And now he is notable! PSBaritoManiakk (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be recreated if and when he makes his debut, but until then, speculation as to potential future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he was playing in the Albanian Superliga, please check, here and here.

    See also WP:FPL

    Albanian Superliga is fully Professional League.

    Tommy Syahputra (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Tommy, as the second link looks to externally confirm Albanian Superliga appearances, though it will need to be better sourced for the infobox. matt91486 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - He played in the Albanian second division for a few years which is fully-pro, however, although I don't doubt this, it isn't properly referenced. IJA (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, no reliable source can be found to show that he meets the notability requirements for his own article. — Jkudlick tcs 05:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Despite claims above, I cannot find a reliable source that proves he ever even played in a FPL, let alone achieved anything that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think its quite clear that the player is not notable right now. MbahGondrong (talk) 19:20, 5 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 too soon to relist. Spartaz Humbug! 10:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Skye[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brittney Skye (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 porno actress who is still as non-notable as she was last time her article was AfD'd (three weeks ago). Let's see if it'll close on a solid yay-or-nay this time rather than "no consensus". Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude this is too soon. Refer to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given a no-consensus sputter-death over the holiday break while most of us were preoccupied, this is more like a "bump" than a challenge.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:POINTY nomination. The previous discussion looks like an easy keep. Using the rational of Christmas was in the way of the last discussion isn't valid. Should all the deleted articles between 21st and 31st Dec be restored so they have another chance? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This was only closed on the 31st .... and 2 days later you renominate it .... Just because it was closed around the Xmas period doesn't mean you can renominate it days later!, Also the actual AFD went on for an entire month, WP:POINTY much?. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The previous AFD ran for nearly a month and was only just closed two days ago. There's indeed no need to restart the process allover again this soon. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16:07 CET
  • Speedy Keep. WP:POINTY AfD as noted above. Redban, the user who started that last AfD for Skye, was blocked for his disruptive behavior of starting AfD's for notable porn stars. Раціональне анархіст's behavior is very similar to that of Redban's and I think they might be the same user. Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have you in for a $100 bet? (We can go to check-user right now.)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm seeing four Keep votes based on procedural rationales and the fact that the previous AfD creator got himself in trouble. None of these address the merit (or lack thereof) of the article in question.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was all discussed in the previous AFD which was only closed two days ago. Things haven't changed since then, making this AFD frivolous. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 21:44 CET.
The closer observed: "...Discussion prior to the relist was heavily in favor of the article; afterwards less so...." Xymmax"
...In other words, support was slipping, even in light of the previous nominator poisoning his own soup.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're giving a very one sided summary of the 1st AFD. It's not because two editors argued "delete" in the latter days of the AFD that support was actually slipping. Those votes were easily matched by a couple of new "Keep"s. In the end, a clear majority felt that Skye passed the notability requirement. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 22:12 CET.
The summary was "no consensus".--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 21:36, 2 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. Nominator withdrawn, no votes for deletion. Cavarrone 06:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry[edit]

Naked Ambition: An R Rated Look at an X Rated Industry (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 porn book and documentary. Refs appear RS in the article, but dubious when clicked.Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if they're fo-sho RS or if they're blogs or no-editorial-control content-generators masquerading as reliable sources. The content of the SFGate article is an interview/puff-piece by Violet Blue (who should be credited, per WP:NEWSBLOG, in the ref). ThePhoenix is The Phoenix (newspaper)'s website; a coalition of Boston-area alternative weeklies shifted to the internet. The last source, allegedly by Variety, actually goes to highbeam.com, which appears to be a search-engine or aggregator which has captured a press-release.
I'm reconsidering and sort of back to neutral. If somebody were to pop in another really solid RS, I would immediately withdraw.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, those are nice (particularly those at the end, i.e., the NYT, after the more dubious ones). If they had been in the article to start with, this AfD wouldn't exist. So, consider withdrawn and close.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the withdraw and close, Раціональне анархіст... but please remember WP:NRVE. IE: notability is found through the existence of topic sources and not through their use or not within an article. And had WP:BEFORE been followed, you might have tagged the article for work and avoided an AFD all together. Remember WP:NOTCLEANUP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:38, 4 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Lockwood[edit]

Kurt Lockwood (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 porno actor. Lots of references, but all smut industry PR fluff. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of the article's four listed awards, two are awards for scenes, which do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO; another award is not a major award; the final award is a best-supporting (which has not been regarded as a "major" award in other porn AfDs). Has not "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" or "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" (therefore failing PORNBIO #2 and #3.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what other AfDs has a Best Supportinng Actor AVN Award not been considered major? This is an individual category for a well-known award, satisfying PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with the Best Supporting Actor AVN win and per my comments above. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Note: the article in question here has been recently edited. Both the Adam Film World Guide Award for "Best Actor, Film" and the AVN Award for "Best Supporting Actor, Film" are "well-known and significant industry awards" under PORNBIO. Best Actor & Best Supporting Actor Awards in other genres of film are also considered to be major awards.
This is another recent example of why recently-new Wikipedia editors (supposedly only a couple of month's old in this specific case) shouldn't be allowed at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have my brighter moments.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 08:12, 3 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. Poor sourcing, which does not appear to meet the definition of WP:N/CA. Particularly in that respect, the majority of sources can be considered "routine" coverage rather than anything significant. —Dark 22:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Dave Oren Ward[edit]

Killing of Dave Oren Ward (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)

Sad as this case may be, there is nothing notable about this crime, one of about 16,000 criminal deaths in the US in 1999.[19] The community has already found that neither the victim nor the convicted are notable individuals. The death itself does not meet the WP:CRIME or criminal events notability expectations. Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 04:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the "perpetrator", one "actor Nate Moore", is the same person as this actor Nate Moore, then merger is a possible resolution.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the same person. Merger is not a resolution. Risker (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article subject matter is notable and well referenced. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the article subject matter is notable? It is not well referenced, it has two references; one from Variety, which reports almost anything involving anyone involved in the LA-based entertainment industry, mentions Ward's death but does not ever get around to identifying his assailant (despite the fact that the information was certainly available contemporaneously). The second appears to be a classic British "look at the Americans killing each other off" article written exclusively from the point of view of those who were close to the victim; essentially a human interest story, not well sourced, and certainly not impartial. That's not well referenced. Risker (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire piece is well referenced. Your nomination of this article for deletion sounds like just another case of Wikipedia deletionist WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Neptune's Trident (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neptune's Trident, I've quoted two separate notability guidelines, neither of which I believe this article meets, and which you've not refuted; in fact, you've made an argument that should be avoided. You've not explained in any way how this specific case of manslaughter, one of thousands and thousands of criminal killings in the U.S. in one year, is notable. You've not come up with any better sources, contemporary or more recent. The last apparent mention of this matter was at the time of sentencing; this is not a matter of ongoing interest or discussion. I understand that you work hard to create articles, and do your best to fill in the red links on those you work on; indeed, that's pretty much how this entire project was created. But this topic just isn't notable, it's just another case of manslaughter, and there's nothing at all special about it. At least try to come up with a policy-based reason to keep it; if not even you can do that, then there's really no case to be made to keep it. Risker (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-referenced article on a notable subject per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an article based on poorly-sourced negative content about a living, non-notable person, and as such, that content must be deleted if higher-quality sourcing is not available. WP:BLP calls quite forcefully for negative BLP content to be handled with extreme care; the expectation is that sourcing for such articles, especially as regards the negative aspects, must be impeccable. Instead, this article presents as its sources: an obituary for Ward (which confirms that Ward was stabbed and died, nothing else wrt the crime being notable or the BLP subject being involved), a New York Times CV of Ward (the entire content of which is four film names), a New York Times film review (which mentions Ward's name once, passingly noting he was "crew" on the film), and an article from The Guardian which appears to be a dramatization of the killing.

    Of these, the Guardian article is the only one which approaches a substantive mention of the Ward's death, and it relies heavily on apparent personal opinion and gossipy dramatization. Written largely in the present tense, as though the author is at the scene, the tone is deliberately breathless and one-sided, rendering it, as Risker phrases it, more of a human-interest piece than a reliable source. For example:

    • Article opening: "'This is bad, this is bad!' Justin Bowman screams from the back of the white Jeep Cherokee as it barrels through West Hollywood toward Cedars-Sinai Medical Center." Heavy dramatization of the event, considering there appear to be no sources providing this information. All of the article's coverage of the killing uses the same gossipy, screenplay-script tone.
    • Article closing: "'He's a pretty bad actor,' Ward's mother, Barbara, says, appalled by what she feels was Moore's lack of remorse. 'Even in a part you don't want to play, you have to be convincing.'" A pretty big dose of point-of-view on which to end something we're using to write a "neutral" article about Moore.
But let's try a thought experiment: let's say that we stipulate that the Guardian article is 100% neutral and reliable source for this event. Where does that leave us in relation to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines for event coverage? Well, let's see:
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. No enduring coverage or significance of the event is presented here: the latest - the only - source for the event is essentially contemporaneous with Moore's court plea. No significant lasting effect is apparent: no law has been passed in response, no history books are covering this event as instructive, there's not even a "where are they now" from People magazine.
  • Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. Nothing indicates this event has had a significant effect on any region, domain, or group: actors still go out drinking, martial artists still use weapons, Californians still engage in as much road rage as anyone else.
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Again, coverage here appears to have ended about the time Moore's appearance in court did. If any reliable source has covered the event since the end of that natural endpoint to the cycle, I'm unable to find it.
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. This is the article's biggest hope; the Guardian article is surely a feature-length article in a reliable, international newspaper. However, the Guardian article is a single instance of coverage, whether international or not. In addition, it simply repeats the events as someone claims they happened, and is in fact structured to give the impression of being "eyewitness news" where the reader is observing the event happening. It does not attempt to contextualize the event or present it in a way that shows how knowledge of the event is of historical value; in fact, it does not venture outside the small circle of people who knew Moore and/or Ward intimately at all, and makes no apparent attempt to establish the event as being significant to anyone other than those people.
So, where does that leave us? Well, it leaves us hosting an article about a non-notable event involving negative information about a living person - an article which is based entirely on a single source of questionable neutrality and which fails to contextualize or comment upon the event in any informative manner. In short, it leaves us with an article that runs afoul of our BLP policy and that, even if cleaned of poorly-sourced negative BLP content, would still not demonstrate any particular notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - totally as per User:Risker's rationale - there is nothing notable about this crime, one of about 16,000 criminal deaths in the US in 1999.[1] The community has already found that neither the victim nor the convicted are notable individuals. The death itself does not meet the WP:CRIME or criminal events notability expectations. - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETEKEEP - Good lord, even Neptune's Trident was blocked for SOCKing! I still stand by my statement below (which it seems few have read entirely), but being an Inclusionist only goes so far.The article is sourced and covered by several Wikipedia projects. It started as a pair of BLP articles that were the target of outright WP:CENSORSHIP that involved multiple instances of WP:SOCKPUPPETry and a ridiculous amount of posturing over what should or should not be Notable on Wikipedia. I find the fact that so much effort has gone into deleting this information, is reason to be suspect.
  • I'd also like to add that the collective viewing statistics for the Nate Moore and Dave Ward article indicate that the subject matter is of interest to our Readers. This new article simply collects the content and better complies with WP policy, but none of these actions can change the fact that people have been visiting the pages since their creation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have my doubts about that, Scalhotrod, given that the current article's title misspells the name of the victim. I'd fix it with appropriate moves (including moving this page) except someone would no doubt say that I had a conflict. The page views for this article are entirely consistent with the fact that it was being created during the earlier AFDs. Most of the views of David Oren Ward were in relation to editing over the past year. Risker (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a request at the administrator's noticeboard for someone uninvolved to make the necessary page moves and corrections to log entries. Risker (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Scalhotrod's arguments. There has been a concerted effort to get all these articles removed. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double vote - Administrator note - Neptunes Trident has double voted in this discussion - and, yes there has been a concerted effort to delete this not notable killing as per the within WP:policies and guidelines rational to this deletion discussion. Please note that User:Neptune's Trident is the primary creator of the two biographies now deleted at AFD and as they were going to be deleted and has now created this in an attempt to have wikipedia continue to host detail about this not notable death. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed second vote, just left the comment. And Administrator note - Govindaharihari has been one of the primary antagonists in wanting these articles deleted. Please note that Govindaharihari has been wrongly insisting this subject matter is not notable when it is. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated both your wp:blp creations for article deletion discussion because I didn't think under wikipedia guidelines that they should have a wikipedia article - both of them were deleted after the WP:AFD discussions - I would have nominated your attempt to rehost the story under this title if User:Risker had not beat me to it with a very clear policy rational for deletion - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. The articles were removed because the one article about the incident was seen as a better idea for the subject matter. Neptune's Trident (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • those deletion discussions do not support your claim - see the closing statements and the comments about the low notability of the incident and the people in both AFD chats
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nate_Moore_%28actor%29
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dave_Oren_Ward
    • Govindaharihari (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of those so-called comments were made by multiple sockpuppet accounts all saying the same thing. Neptune's Trident (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd suggest they were closed the way they were because the arguments to delete were based on policy. I've yet to see anything policy-based on the keep side of the table. Saying the names of policies isn't the same thing as demonstrating how those policies apply to these discussions. Risker (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unlike most crime articles, this one actually has secondary sourcing, the Guardian article from three years later. However, we really ought to have some other secondary sourcing; source 1 is a routine news report, a primary source, while the other two sources aren't substantial coverage at all. Bring in another secondary source, independent of the Guardian, and I'll happily switch to "keep". Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, jackpot then. I've found a reliable secondary source, an article in July 6, 1999 of The Advocate magazine called Coming Out the Hard Way. And in it the article states that Nate Moore was raised in Beverly Hills and is the son of a judge and an assistant district attorney. So it's obvious now who was the person or persons claiming to be a district attorney who were strongly advocating and sockpuppeting in Nate Moore's behalf. His parents. Here is the link to the article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qWQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=dave+oren+ward+los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=kGnC1adEik&sig=ZQT6ZBnneNQq9prqZzmIiaPfe9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3ZunVIbfDYLYoATX7YKYBw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=dave%20oren%20ward%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

I've already added The Advocate piece to the Wikipedia article as a reference and a VERY reliable source.

Hopefully now Nyttend (talk) and other Wikipedia editors will switch their votes to Keep now. And hopefully this now settles the debate that this article and subject IS notable and worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. Neptune's Trident (talk)

It shows the individual exists, and a bit of their personal life, and some limited commentary regarding the death. But the timing is still extremely close in proximity to the death, it's a fairly small portion of the article, and while it is a good source to add I don't see how it clearly addresses the concerns of the nominee. NativeForeigner Talk 10:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a news magazine basically from the context of the event; I said a secondary source. What's more, as NativeForeigner notes, it's not a substantial enough mention; I meant something focusing solely or extensively on the event. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker and Fluffernutter. Routine murder like thousands of others, of no long-term significance. To those who say it's notable because it has been in the papers, I point out that the WP:GNG itself says, in the fifth bullet point, that coverage creates "an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not." and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." JohnCD (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: echoing the reasoning of Fluttermutter. And as JohnCD states just above; this person would have no enduring notability outside this sad event. A stand alone article on this person's career outside his death would not be kept: see Mia Zapata. She was decidedly notable prior to her death. Fylbecatulous talk 15:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per Fluffernutter. Minor event with no encyclopaedic significance. Fails WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've thought long and hard about the unusual circumstances surrounding and leading up to this article, this is not your typical AfD. The ridiculous number of WP:SOCKPUPPETs involved combined with the rhetoric from all sides including purported officials and the perpetual attempts at what I consider censorship notwithstanding, I have also considered things like Right to be forgotten, a concept that has been discussed and debated on Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales' own Talk page fairly often. Granted, I personally believe that Nate Moore has the right to move on with his life given that he spent 12 years in prison, but at the same time I feel that Dave Ward does not deserve to be forgotten. Yes, I realize that Wikipedia is not a memorial, but the mention of Ward in this article can hardly be considered a memorial.

That said, this crime/killing/event (however anyone prefers to refer to it) is seemingly one of the least sensationalized "Hollywood murders" I have heard of as a Southern California resident and an Entertainment industry employee. Factor in that Moore's parents are a Los Angeles County judge and assistant district attorney [20] and I have to wonder if that had anything to do with the suppression of the story in 1999 and since then. Having a User with the name "CA Prosecutor DDA" involved just seems suspiciously convenient. (No, that's NOT an accusation, its an observation given the sources we have) But a parent's devotion to their child would certainly explain a lot of things that just seem odd (even for Wikipedia) regarding this and the related articles.

I came into this situation via request made at the BLP Noticeboard to improve an article which then had an anti-Censorship aspect added to it when I observed the actions taken to eliminate the information being presented (i.e. the Sock Puppets, influx of new Users, and single purpose accounts). And its in that tact and intention that I leave it. I've said my peace and leave it up to the reviewing Admin to sort through. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, Scalhotrod. It has nothing to do with censorship. It has nothing to do with memorialization. The creation of the original two articles had nothing to do with the death of Ward or the conviction of Moore, either; this article is a spin-off of what is essentially a tidbit from each of those articles about a random act of violence that involved a bunch of non-notable people. I hate to say it, but the event immortalized in this article is so run-of-the-mill that I'm hard pressed to understand why anyone would think it notable enough for an article; there were literally thousands of similar deaths in the US in the same year that this occurred. Notability does not derive from the fact that people *don't* think the event is notable, or think that the people involved are not notable, and it's not censorship to suggest that people aren't notable. Risker (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Scalhotrod, you do not have a good case that deletion at this AfD, if that is the result, has been achieved by "Sock Puppets, influx of new Users, and single purpose accounts". Including the nominator, those in favour of deletion (Risker, Fluffernutter, Govindaharihari, Nyttend, myself, Fylbecatulous and RGloucester) have been here since, respectively, 2005, 2008, 2014, 2006, 2006, 2011 and 2011. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable (though tragic) event that hasn't received substantial or enduring or significant coverage in reliable sources. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought I posted on all the articles but apparently I did not. So, I will repost my opinion here. Before I do that however, I would like to say that I am unsure why I am being accused of so many things. First I was using my "position" for influence and now I am a "parent" of the defendant and as such that's why I have my opinion. Just to clarify, I am not a parent of the defendant, in fact, I was born AFTER 1975, which is the year listed as the defendant's birth year. I am not related to the defendant or the victim of this case. Also, let me address some inconsistencies in your newest "source." I will also include some "clues" since I've read the reports in this case. First, it says that the defendant was raised in Beverly Hills and his parent was an "assistant district attorney." That being said, you list his high school as being in Pittsburgh. If he were raised in Beverly Hills, what was he doing going to high school in Pittsburgh? Second, you say his parent was an "assistant district attorney." I remind you that I am a DEPUTY district attorney. Here in California we are referred to as Deputy district attorney's, with the exception whoever the actual District Attorney chooses as their "second(s)" in command, and that is/are the Assistant District Attorney(s). However, in other states, instead of deputy DAs they are called "assistant district attorney's." So... If the defendant's parent was in fact an assistant district attorney, it was not in CA. Now, let me go back to the fact that the magazine says the defendant was raised in Beverly Hills. The biggest problem with that is the following: if his parent were in fact a district attorney in Los Angeles, the LA DA would have had a conflict of interest in prosecuting the case. Especially if the parent were an "assistant district attorney", meaning they were in command in the office. Yet, this case was in fact prosecuted in Los Angeles. Congratulations, you once again have cited a magazine article with inaccurate information.

Now, let me continue. I agree with Risker. All of the back and forth on the talk page of the deleted articles was between Neptune's Trident and the "sock puppet" person whom Neptune's Trident accused multiple times of being the person whom the article was about. I said it on the other page and I'll say it here... It doesn't seem like that should be allowed. Which supports my point that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to serve as a battleground for victims vs. defendants or proponents of either side. It further doesn't surprise me that the same person created all of these pages.

@Neptune's Trident: at no time have you, in any of your many comments, ever addressed any of the points made by ANYONE as to how this crime is noteworthy or how the people involved are noteworthy. In fact, the only thing you have ever said is simply that the pages should be kept and are noteworthy. You can make any statements you want but without any justification and reliable information to support what you are saying, your statements are simply that. Statements; and they are meaningless.

From the beginning I have given the opinion that 1. This sets bad precedent, 2. Neither the persons involved or the crime itself are noteworthy, and 3. The information as it is reported is inaccurate, and by placing inaccurate information on this site, you are tarnishing the integrity of wikipedia.

1. This sets bad precedent:

I stand by the notion that this sets bad precedent. If people are going to start Wikipedia pages for every case involving a death it would be never-ending.

2. Neither the persons involved or the crime itself are noteworthy

Neither of the persons involved in this crime are noteworthy. This has already been made clear based on the fact that both their pages were already deleted.

The crime itself is not noteworthy. This case holds no significance to the public in any way. If you are going to find significance in any cases they should be those worth the attention of the public, and quite frankly as I stated before, this is not. I doubt a single person cares about this case besides the parties involved. People should focus on those cases that actually mean something to the public or the legal field. This case set no legal precedent. It is not the basis for any new law or legislation, there was no appeal, and it's not even a "citable" case. I understand that the lives of the Victim's family were affected by this incident and the life of the defendant was affected, but the truth of the matter is, it had no effect on the community or any impact on the legal field.

3. The information as it is reported is inaccurate, and by placing inaccurate information on this site, you are tarnishing the integrity of wikipedia.

In my very first post as it relates to this page I stated that you have cited a "tabloidy" magazine article. First, these types of magazine articles are not reliable sources of information. Second, and more importantly, the information you've cited is inaccurate. Unfortunately, there was no trial in his case. As such, there is no true court record as a basis for the facts. Unlike most other case cited to on Wikipedia, where there actually is a trial which provides a basis for true and accurate information (again, going back to the fact that this case is not noteworthy) that is not the case here. Also, the plea in this case was "no contest" meaning that the defendant did not admit guilt and as such, there is no factual basis for a guilty plea, which would also be a public record. So really, your only recourse is to turn to police reports. To respond in the most educated manner, I have taken the time to read all the reports in this case and the series of events as listed by @Neptune's Trident: are not found in those reports. Thus, you have now not only reported an incident that was not "noteworthy" but you have reported facts that are inaccurate and untrue.

Finally, in addressing the misinformation posted by Scalhotrod, on one of the deleted pages, police reports, witness statements, followup incident investigations, and medical staff statements taken by police are NOT public record. I don't know where that user got that idea. All of those things are located in the DA file and (I'm assuming) the defense attorney's file. Neither of which is of public record. Also, the Defendant would get a copy of reports. I guess you could always attempt to ask him for a copy. As I stated above, it appears that in some of the other comments I was reading, @Neptune's Trident: accused him of being on here a couple times. So maybe that's worth a shot? Anyways, point is you cannot just go to the law enforcement agency and ask for copies of reports re: people. Hence the reason, in my prior posts, I was kind enough to inform you that the facts as listed by @Neptune's Trident: are inaccurate. I was accused before by @SCalHotRod of possibly violating my ethical obligations, however, it is because the information is not public record that I did not correct the misinformation. I have simply let you know it is inaccurate. As stated by another user, @Fluffernutter: there was no trial and thus no trial testimony, which WOULD be public record.

I will end with this. I played no role in this case, and no role in the prosecution of this case. I am not for the victim or against the victim, nor am I for the defendant or against the defendant. I will reiterate the statement I made on the other page. I simply have an opinion. I did not intend to wage any war with @Neptune's Trident: or @Scalhotrod. I don't know why they have chosen to attack me personally and attack my opinion simply because it disagrees with theirs. It is simply my opinion based on my arguments and observations made above. This page should be DELETED. CA Prosecutor DDA (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, I agree with Risker (talk · contribs). Some of the article is covered by citations from reliable sources, but even if verifiability could be met, I agree with previous arguments that it is not relevant enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sources contribute to establish, but do not guarantee notability.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 9 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talon (pornographic actor)[edit]

Talon (pornographic actor) (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 porno actor. Also consider Alex Baldwin (pornographic actor) (which redirects to Talon). Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (quip) @ 22:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Angelina[edit]

Eva Angelina (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 porno actress; article is basically an AVN press-release (as most of these type articles are). Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Multiple significant performer awards satisfies PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has not "made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" or "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" (failing PORNBIO).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 applies. The non-scene related ones as good enough to pass PORNBIO. Website of the year and Female Performer of the year do lift her out of the crowd. Dunno about best actress video but certainly this is someone who currently meets the required standard. Spartaz Humbug! 11:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily satisfies criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO. For the record those criteria don't have to be cumulatively met. One only needs to pass a single one, and she easily passes the main criterium as she has won multiple individual awards. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16;26 CET
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors; has won numerous well-known and significant awards. Notice that Раціональне анархіст's behavior is very similar to that of recently blocked user Redban. He has started several AfD's today for porn articles. Even the comments he's making in the AfD's are similar to those Redban made. Same user? Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you've made that accusation today, Rebecca. File it, or stop the personal attacks. I would observe that you appear to be here solely to promote and defend pornography articles, as it's 100% of your activity, and so strong reasons exist to assume you're an industry insider in violation of Wikipedia:TOS.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case may I point out that your own contribution history looks pretty much like a single purpose account geared for deleting articles: the majority of all your edits pertains to AFD's. That's not exactly normal/standard behaviour either... especially for an account which is only active since a month and a half. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 23:17 CET.
Nonsense; I have plenty of "keep" votes, and my interests are all over the map. ...are we through talking about everything except the subject yet?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO criterion 1 with an AVN Award for Best Actress and an XBIZ Award for Best Female Performer. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The AVN Award for "Best Actress (Video)", the XBIZ Award for "Female Performer of the Year", and the XRCO Award for "Best Actress – Single Performance" are all major, "well-known and significant industry awards" under the PORNBIO standard.
It's pretty obvious that the original nominee of this AfD (a supposedly "new" Wikipedia user) is likely not at all new to Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Glazebrook[edit]

Jane Glazebrook (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:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG with only one source in the news; article is just a list of publications, writing like all professors do. — kikichugirl speak up! 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably more accurate to say that most professors write rather than that all do - but the important thing in this case is that, at least according to Google Scholar, two papers she has been involved in writing (including one of which she was sole author) have been cited over 1,000 times and 30 have been cited over 100 times. We standardly reckon that this level of citation represents a clear pass of WP:NACADEMICS#1. The article could certainly do with some rewriting (it is odd, for example, that given the numbers quoted in the last sentence, the first of the subject's publications listed in the article is apparently a recent one that has so far been cited only 11 times), but this is not in itself a reason for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1. To PWilkinson's detailed explanation I would add that one of the top two papers is singly-authored by her. (It's in a review journal rather than original research, but still I think that should be enough to show that her individual contributions are significant.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion, but she does appear on the Thompson-Reuters most cited scientists list, and is one of a small number of women who appear there. bd2412 T 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:13, 2 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 List of Penthouse Pets. Clearly no consensus to keep as a standalone article, but a redirect has reasonable support. Michig (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teanna Kai[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Teanna Kai (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 porno actress Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject appears to fail WP:PORNBIO, WP:GNG and other possibly relevant SNGs. Her ensamble scene-related award do not count towards notability. The actual sourcing do not confer notability. In my searches I found nothing of substance. Possibly redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Cavarrone 10:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner, so - keep. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     13:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award win is scene-related. It does not count for WP:PORNBIO. Have you ever voted delete on a porn AfD? • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cavarrone's accurate analysis. Despite the nom's pro for a analysis, this is a clear-cut case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Despite having done an extensive search on the subject & recently editing the article in question myself, there does not appear to be enough notability at this time to justify a stand-alone article for the subject here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unfortunately fails PORNBIO as well as GNG, ..... Nope no one's seeing things I have !voted delete . –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:23, 9 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. Michig (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charmane Star[edit]

Charmane Star (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 porno actress. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This is a tougher one. She clearly fails criterium #1 of WP:PORNBIO as she has never won an award, but as to #2-3 of WP:PORNBIO I'm not sure. I'm still inclined to say (weak) delete but the one thing that stops me fully endorsing it is her presence in a non adult movie and in that music video. I don't now exactly how big her involvement was in either the film Black Dynamite or in that music video... If it's only (very) minor, the weak delete become a full blown delete. If it is more substantial presence, it might be notable enough, and it becomes weak keep in stead of weak delete. -- fdewaele, 2 January 2015, 16:58 CET.
  • Keep - encyclopedic. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs work, yes... but it appears this topic is covered in news and books. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article in question here. It might be a close call, but I believe that the subject here now meets the PORNBIO #3/GNG target of "has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." Guy1890 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MQS & Guy1890 - The article's not perfect but with those sources provided I'd say she passes GNG as well as PORNBIO. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Wood Post[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Free Wood Post (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)

Three consecutive AFD's closed as "no consensus". Will a gap of a few months finally lead to us reaching a consensus? This article hasn't changed one iota sine its last nomination: it's still horribly sourced, with the only "sources" being other websites that used it as a reference. I was unable to find any WP:RS about the actual site, just name-drops of it. Also, Fwpwiki (talk · contribs) has edited the article frequently, suggesting heavy WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - TenPoundHammer, this is now your fifth nomination of this page in less than six months; that's disruptively high, and it is indeed the fact that you keep nominating this that makes people vote to keep. Those previous AfDs provide me with some things that I think give this enough notability to at least have a basic start. For example, we have this source, which seems reasonable to me, as does this one. The fact that the website is cited by Forbes very much conveys some notability to me; if they weren't notable at all, Forbes would've ignored them (and Forbes themselves described FWP as having the widest circulation of the hoax). It is also clear that more people have actively voted keep (this is defining all votes that were related to the topic at hand, without solely being SK2s with no further commentary) than delete across the four AfDs previously... you really need to drop the stick and move on. This is not a dangerously contentious BLP, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lukeno94: It was repeatedly closed as "no consensus", not "keep". All I freaking want is a consensus. There were plenty of dissenters to keeping it as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not correct; last time it was closed as Speedy Keep. Note that one of the delete voters went on to !vote Speedy Keep in the next couple of AfDs - that should tell you something as well. I appreciate you want a consensus, but remember WP:NODEADLINE, and that there is absolutely no need to rush into deleting this. Five AfDs in less than six months is clearly disruptive, and is not going to help you, or your case. Come back in a year, but even then I'd probably advise against it, as there does appear to be some notability here at the very least, and the state of the article/any SPAs involved aren't strictly relevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the 5 previous discussions, there were only 2 policy-based Delete !votes, versus a clear majority of editors who thought that newspaper writers around the nation being amused or irritated by this site was good enough to qualify under GNG. In my view, the radio station interview qualifies as in-depth coverage, although barely. Per Lukeno94 I think it's time to just accept that some people want to keep it and that that there is no WP:NODEADLINE for improving it. And I'm not sure about frequent editing = COI. That could just be a fan. – Margin1522 (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inadequate coverage in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes doesn't fall into either category. Nor do the two I mentioned in my !vote. (am not intending to badger anyone, even if it looks that way - just curious if anyone has looked carefully or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lukeno94's above accurate analysis and sources. Cavarrone 22:25, 24 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, MBisanz talk 00:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Well, it certainly seems to fail the GNG for lack of coverage about Free Wood Post (e.g. the Forbes article doesn't even appear to mention its name). In contrast, there are a whole lot of sources about other satirical/fake news sites we have articles for. So it seems to rely on reliable sources picking up their stories, which has happened a few times but, in my view, not enough to merit a keep. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 2 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  02:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Girl[edit]

Grub Girl (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 porno. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator has also nominated every performer in this film who has a Wikipedia page. Three requests have already been closed as Keep, one was closed because it was too soon to relist. 209.90.140.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two of them are at present failing.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...which does not make this kind of behaviour acceptable. You can't take a film, nominating in a few minutes the whole cast for deletion with the rationale "non notable actor" and THEN discover if some of the subjects you nominated are notable or not. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. First of all you have to accurately check articles to see if they pass relevant notability guidelines, if they fail you have to make WP:BEFORE, finally you can nominate them. Also consider alternatives to deletion. Starting AfD nominations is not fishing. Cavarrone 06:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A local radio station's website (blog?) and name-drops in two niche non-notable books are a long way from satisfying GNG. See comment below.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and try to understand WP:NEWSBLOG, and understand that if the "niche" is film or horror, then the books covering film or horror are worth consideration for a horror film... like it or not. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator has not made an argument for deletion. Saying "not notable" is not enough, you need to explain why it does not meet the policy. Since you have nominated so many articles with the same lack of rational I am not going to do your homework for you. Chillum 17:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:NFRINGE observes: "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." - I bring it up in regards to the only plausibly RS in the Grub Girl article, the Esquire web-column in which this straight-to-video film had a few inches of space in a "worst of" list (it didn't "win"). Discounting it, there's nothing left.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry... but WP:NFRINGE is set to speak toward notability of fringe theories and rumours and is not to be used for even the crappiest of films UNLESS that film is somehow asserting or explaining some fringe theory... and this film as a fictional narrative that makes no fringe claims. Others may not be in such a hurry to ignore or unfortunately misinterpret notability guides notability as are you. Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One of those sources presented here is self-published; lulu.com is a dead giveaway. The other was published in 1995. I don't see how that could possibly be referring a 2006 film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note: All three of the above-mentioned references are now in the article in question here. While one of the books may indeed be self-published, the infomation currently used from this source in the article is basically confirmed by other sources. The second book is apparently from 2005, and it appears to refer to the original comic book work for which this movie was apparently inspired by. The last source basically appears to be a reprint of a press release.
I'm no expert on Wikipedia's film notability guidelines, but apparently neither is the nominator of this AfD (who again is likely not at all actually new to Wikipedia)...who has appeared to be on a tear recently trying to delete as many pornography-related articles as they can get away with after being frustrated that one their treasured articles was under scrutiny at another AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going with Keep. I came across this article whilst reading about Glenn Danzig. That it is not just a run-of-the-mill porno but is based on a comic and produced by a well-known metal performer makes it notable IMHO. Also concur with Chillum that the nominator hasn't made any argument whatsoever to back their claim. Maxcelcat (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - I've found a few sources (not perfect but then again it's not a widely known film) [24][25][26] so notability is there. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Miami[edit]

List of songs about Miami (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 list article does not seem to serve a purpose, and I feel like it will always be incomplete. It is based on original research currently. Natg 19 (talk) 07:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 07:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no valid deletion rationale presented, and as often in these cases it seems like the nominator is simply unfamiliar with lists of this kind, if not lists on Wikipedia generally. "I don't get it" is not an argument, and the obvious purpose of the list is to group songs by shared subject, just like any of the other lists in Category:Lists of songs about a city. "Incompleteness" is also never a reason to delete; see, for example, Template:Dynamiclist or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists. Most lists on Wikipedia are and always will be "incomplete" in the sense that, as here, we have limited them to entries that have some connection to notable subjects rather than merely every thing of that type that has ever existed. And OR is only a reason to delete if the problem is unfixable, i.e., if it were unverifiable whether any songs are in fact about Miami. Given that this list is (and should be) limited to songs that are either notable themselves or by notable musicians, secondary sources should be available in many cases if interpretation is in doubt. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt there is one song anywhere which is "about Miami", there are several that might mention Miami in passing, for instance Back in the USSR, which appears to get an entry on this list, there may be songs set in Miami, but, I Left My Heart in San Francisco is not about San Francisco, but about the singer's heart. As the nominator states, this is, and always be, original research because you will not find independent sources which say a song is "about a place" so premise for this list is, as postdlf says, unfixable. However, Postdlf is correct - nothing in WP is ever finished. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a valid list, though it could really use a lead and perhaps a bit explaining how each song is about Miami - this would also make it easier to purge the list of songs not about Miami. In response to Richhoncho's point, though, while "Miami Nights" may not actually be about Miami, it certainly seems that "Everybody loves Miami" and "This is Miami" are. That some entries aren't on-topic just means that the list will need occasional purging, as many lists do. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philosopher. If I purged any song which wasn't referenced and about Miami, there would be no list, would there? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...which problem is easily solved by finding sources for what the songs are about before doing the purging. I did give examples of two songs that are clearly about Miami. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first of which some of the lyrics are "Miami nights, it was all a dream, If I can get my money right, I'm about to OD, Little more weed, 1st class seats 1st class hoes, we on South Beach." The second of which the lyrics start, "This is not Miami, This is not Bangkok, This is not Milano, This is not New York" and continues in a similar vein. Are either of these songs really about Miami? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misread the post - I noted that the first of those (Miami Nights) was not about Miami. The second, (Everyone Loves Miami) clearly is about Miami - lyrics here. The third is more than a bit silly, but still about Miami. Hey, we're not music critics here. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not certain I agree that any of the three songs are "about Miami," but my opinion is not relevant, it's whether you can find third party references which say they are about Miami, I am happy to strike my oppose if some references can be found. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:07, 19 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 11:55, 25 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 03:52, 2 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. In the sense that there is clearly consensus not to delete. There is no clear consensus about whether to retain it as a separate article (as the majority appears to prefer) or whether to merge this and related articles, but that can continue to be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon (character)[edit]

Doraemon (character) (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 duplicates content in Doraemon. Any new bits should be merged into that article. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: This is not about deleting Doraemon ! Imaginatorium (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.--十八 05:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.--十八 05:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but extensive expansion. Very separately notable. Looks quite work-in-progress compared with other language wp's. A lot of content specific to him can be translated from, say, jawp. See also ja:ドラえもん (架空のキャラクター). 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll try to get the anime and Japan WikiProjects involved- the character is pretty much Japan's equivalent of Mickey Mouse so I'd be horribly surprised if there wasn't any sourcing out there to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This academic press book asserts that the character (as opposed to simply the anime) is pretty much the most popular anime character ever created in Japan. I know that there are other sources but most of them will likely be in Japanese and I've asked for help from the applicable WP that would likely have someone who speaks Japanese. Again, this is a wildly popular character (ie, of Mickey Mouse and Katniss Everdeen proportions, which are of unusual and exception popularity) and it's very unlikely that there wouldn't be sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to dump some Japanese language sources here since I'm operating with Google Translate and these would need to be gone through by someone fluent. ([30], [31], [32], [33]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Doraemon is notable: that is not an issue. He is already described in Doraemon. This article simply adds nothing new. (I can speak Japanese, and would be happy to help, but I think you have just missed the point.) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's notable, then why not do the work to improve the article? I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to bite anyone, it's just that I really hate the idea of an article being redirected to the main article when you have situations where the AfD would pass notability guidelines but would just require hard work to expand the article. It's kind of counterproductive when you get down to it and discourages further expansion because there wasn't really any WP:BEFORE done with the article. The character was not only made into the Olympics mascot for 2015, but it's also been one of the most popular characters in Japan for years running. I really don't want to see an article get deleted because of a lack of people willing to work on expanding it when there is a reasonable assertion of notability to where it'd merit its own article. That's how I'm reading this situation. It may not be what you intended here, but that's kind of how it's coming across. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I'm not really suggesting deleting anything at all, I'm suggesting that the article describing the character Doraemon should be the article Doraemon, just as, of course, the article describing Micky Mouse is the article Mickey Mouse. This article stub was created about two days ago by someone who copied the (erroneous) explanation of the name, and added a list of transcriptions and a bit about Chinese media. I can quite imagine that there might be a careful split in the Doraemon article, but I think such things have to be thought about carefully, or you end up with two overlapping articles with no really coherent line between them. I think a rush to add bits to the article here is extremely counterproductive. I will rewrite the name bit (basically, no, Doraemon cannot in any normal sense be translated "stray"), but not until the dust has died down. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79 Um, you have looked at the Doraemon article, haven't you?? (There is no shortage of notability, sources, etc) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the better course would have been to ask to move the article into your userspace and work on the article, then move it back. That would probably have taken far less work in the long run than taking this to deletion. I know it's not an easy task to fix and repair an article- I've done that on many occasions myself, but taking this to deletion makes the entire process that much more messy. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and work to improve an article should ideally be done before it's taken to AfD. Typically the only reason an article about an otherwise notable subject should be deleted is if the original article is such a terribly written eyesore that there is no perceivable way to improve it- something that's actually fairly rare when you get down to it. I didn't see where the original state of the article was so bad that it'd warrant being TNT'd and it certainly isn't in that state now. The problem with taking this to deletion is that in order to make the new article people would have to run this through deletion review or the closing admin in order to gain approval to be re-approved, and that's not including the potential that the article could be forgotten in the meantime. It makes more sense to do the work now when it needs to be done than to just nominate it for deletion and wait for it to be improved someday. I mean seriously, why wait to do it later when we could improve it now? If you're too busy to do it then a good alternative would have been to go to the anime or Japan WikiProjects and ask for help. Nominating it for deletion is pretty counterproductive. Plus by your own statements you're saying that this character is notable and there is enough information to warrant a standalone article, just that it needs work. If you can't do it then ask others to do it- it shouldn't be deleted because it needs cleanup. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this article Doraemon (character) was created a couple of days ago, by copying a paragraph from Doraemon, adding a sentence from a Chinese newspaper, and a list of transcriptions we agree is not needed. As best I can understand your logic, if someone created Mickey Mouse (character) by copying a paragraph from Mickey Mouse and adding a sentence from a Chinese newspaper, we should not delete this, but should work to recreate Mickey Mouse in the new place. This makes no sense to me at all. I first met Doraemon about 1979; if I wanted to look him up on Wikipedia, I should be very disappointed if I found that the article Doraemon was somehow about something else. Surely if the manga franchise or whatever is too big to fit in Doraemon's article, it should be shifted off to Doraemon (manga franchise). (And your comment just below about Mickey seems to say exactly this: the article about Mickey/Doraemon should be the article titled Mickey/Doraemon. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the thing about the Mickey article is that ultimately is is about the character. It includes things that wouldn't otherwise fit in the main article for Disney. Perhaps a better comparison would be to say that the Doraemon article has the potential to become as encompassing as the article Sailor Moon (character), as both character do have individual notability from the show/franchise itself- it's just that one hasn't been expanded yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also tag these with a keep and improve rationale for my above reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I wouldn't disagree terribly heavily, but the article being empty doesn't automatically mean that it can't be filled. In this instance you have a character that is so wildly popular in Japan that it's a household name (and there are various theme parks in various different countries based around this character and the show), so odds are extremely high that sources are out there. We shouldn't redirect an article just because the current format of the article is empty. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doraemon is Japan's most-loved character, and he has plenty of news coverage in English all of his very own. He is an official Japanese cultural ambassador,[34] and last year he was also declared as the "ambassador" for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.[35] Then there was the story last summer where he was accused of trying to subvert Chinese youth.[36] If you want to find more, Doraemon has his own tag on the Japan Times website.[37] As for why people in the West haven't heard of him, there's a story for that, too.[38] — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The nom isn't proposing to delete the character, simply to merge it to Doraemon, which is already about the character. The "Name origin" section duplicates material that is handled better in Doraemon, and the "Doraemon name in different languages" section is handled better in List of non-Japanese Doraemon versions. That leaves only one piece of original content in this article – the news story about Chinese nationalists objecting to a Japanese character, and since that is about cultural issues I think it belongs in the article about the series. So as it stands, I think merge is an eminently reasonable proposal. If we are going to keep this article, I think we need ideas for how to make this article different, about the character as such, instead of just that the character is important. His personality, his special powers, etc. Maybe we need some advice here from the anime/manga project. How do they handle individual characters from a manga? – Margin1522 (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Of course Doraemon is notable (but hardly notable "separately" from his manga), but the current article contains nothing new at all. Again, if the section about Doraemon's character became a large part of the Doraemon article, it could be made into a separate article, but that has not happened yet, and having a stub would hardly help it. FWIW, the explanation of his name is quite inaccurate, and is based on a unreliable "Yahoo answer" made up by someone a long time ago, so it is particularly undesirable to have two copies of it. And once there are two copies of "About the character Doraemon" things get out of step; the other option, even worse, is to replace the paragraph attempting to explain his name with "See other article for this paragraph", which is absurd. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a neat way to say "merge-delete" (AfMD), or if there is I have missed it. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a recognized problem. See WP:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As detailed above, this is likely Japan's most universally beloved animated character. David A (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as of current state. Keep if someone works on it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People keep coming up with sources that demonstrates notability separate from the series. Here's one more where the FCC gets caught copying Doraemon as their mascot _dk (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So do you think Mickey Mouse should be split off to "Mickey Mouse (character)"?? Imaginatorium (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imaginatorium: There's a difference there: the term "Doraemon" is as equally likely to refer to the manga as it is to the character, so there is a need to disambiguate the two. However, the term "Mickey Mouse" is much more likely to refer to the character than it is to anything else, so there isn't a need for a separate Mickey Mouse (character) page. For more, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you think that Doraemon is somehow less likely than Mickey Mouse to refer to the character? I don't understand that at all; they seem to be parallels. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty simple: there isn't a major cartoon or film called "Mickey Mouse", but everyone knows about the character called "Mickey Mouse". That's why he's at the Mickey Mouse page and not the Mickey Mouse (character) page. For the other things with the name "Mickey Mouse" we have Mickey Mouse (disambiguation). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As much as the article requires work, duplicating content in other articles isn't actually a problem in itself. The degree to which the character is responsible for the success of the actual series means this is to be expected. It just doesn't have enough content, a problem that can be easily fixed given the abundance of sources available on the character and series. The real problem is that the Doraemon articles in general are in very poor state, there are too many of them and no one seems interested in doing any real work on them.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, i didn't realise the page had only just been created, I had assumed it had been here for years.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah I have overlooked List of Doraemon characters, which already have a section about Doraemon (and should be linked more prominently by the franchise article). With the extensive materials there and provided here by many above though, it is still decently reasonable to support this as a split. (Most of the Legacy section in the franchise article is of the character, not the whole franchise anyway.) 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 13:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but first cleanup the article. Westerners may not know it, but Doraemon is one of the most iconic characters in Japan. Up there with Pikachu and Kitty White (Hello Kitty). I know that popularity alone isn't enough to establish notability, and I do know WP:OSE, but in this particular case, I say for his iconic status alone, he's notable enough for an article. Also, there's reliable coverage of him and his franchise's impact in Japan. And there should also be coverage for the impact he's had in the Philippines (Doraemon is more popular and has been around longer in the Philippines than in America; we even have Tagalog translations of the manga, and the anime is aired here frequently in the mornings). Clearly a notable character. But the article still needs improvement. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not just in the Philippines, probably all throughout Asia, parts of Europe, and South America. (Practically everywhere except North America.) _dk (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that no-one wants to delete Doraemon? The article under consideration is a copy of part of this made a few days ago: Doraemon (character)... Imaginatorium (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, stop hounding me. I'll restate that the character is notable apart from the series it came from. _dk (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The character is clearly notable enough that arguments about length become irrelevant. Besides, length is subjective and doesn't infer any quality or appropriateness.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with the sources being used here. There might be some reliable Chinese sources as well as the character has been popular in China. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been much improved since nomination, even though it's still early days.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation. A lot of the "keep" arguments seem odd. There was and remains an article on Doraemon. There was and remains an article List of Doraemon characters. Nobody has suggested the deletion of either; and currently, neither is particularly long. I don't think that there has been a demand that an article Doraemon (character) should never exist (if worthwhile material about the one character outgrew both earlier articles). I don't see arguments for the helpfulness either now or in the likely near future of this third, additional article. See Wikipedia:Content forking, with its "Unacceptable types of forking: Redundant content forks". -- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a solution to that. Just rewrite each article so that they don't duplicate each other. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say a lot of the merge arguments are odd. Having a main article for the series and a character list doesn't prevent an individual article for a character, and Doraemon clearly qualifies as notable enough to justify a separate article. The question is content, but seeing as the article was brought here almost immediately after it's creation, no one had any chance to address the issue. Your argument, if you intend it to or not reads like an argument about notability, which even them nom says it isn't about. SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is indeed a potential solution. Your use of "just" carries a slight suggestion that the task would be an easy one. Perhaps you'd like to contribute some help? I note that other editors have worked to ensure that the article improved since its AfD nomination: unsourced trivia has been cut, sourced material has been added. (From my POV, the problems are that much of the freshly added material, however well sourced, also looks like trivia; and that even with these additions, the material could easily fit into one or other of the two preexisting articles.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't really help out given that, though Doraemon is popular in my country, I myself am not very familiar with the series. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, this article was already a split from List of Doraemon characters. Nobita should probably be kept as a redirect given his lack of notability outside the series, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mere suggestion of treating Doraemon the same as Nobita shows a severe misunderstanding of both the issue and the details of the characters and their cultural significance.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly the article was created on a whim by an inexperienced editor, but it was also brought here almost immediately when a bold merge could have made. With the state of the article at the time as well as it's fresh creation, it would have been uncontroversial. However when it was brought here the issue changed significantly, be it because of the process itself or the debate that has unfolded. The character is obviously notable, and the nominator has said that the notability of the character isn't being questioned. Well thats all well and good, but if the character is so clearly notable, that means we should probably have an individual article for it. Unfortunately it does take time to write such an article, but the work has already been started. Some people seem to be confusing the issue by saying that having a series article and character list mean we don't need an article for one character, but the cultural phenomenon of the character and the resulting reception sources mean that we have more than enough reason to have a separate article. Now, the article still needs expanding and improving, but that is a time consuming process that can't be done under AFD time limits. As the page stands a merge doesn't seem necessary and has no benefit. Attention should now focus on improving the article (and other articles of the series), not trying to save it. yes there is some overlap between the articles, but this can be refined as the articles are developed. This is very much a page that we should be looking to improve, not hide. SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the improvements and sourcing which have been done. This article no longer meets the requirements for deletion, neither does it merit merging as it it well sourced enough to stand on its own. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CKod[edit]

CKod (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. Impossible to tell from article whether it's notable, but a web search on the pretty distinctive name turns up nothing. Looks like a trivial programming exercise, if not a joke, though the links provide so little information (no documentation, no source code (sort of needed for GPL licensed software), no version history, no link to programmer's web site) that it's impossible to say. The actual web site has minimal functionality, minimal anything really. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • note It was previously prodded but that was removed without giving a reason by an editor making their one and only edit. I also tried prodding it before noticing it had already happened.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random sourceforge project with no evidence of independent notability. Google scholar turns up zilch. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Poorly-written article, but I like the idea of Wikipedia being a knowledge repository of weird technical projects. Is it a fork of Kod?--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • definitely not. It may be a fork of something but without being able to see the (GPL??) code it's hard to tell. Curiously searching for 'ckod source code' turns up the repository for Kod, but that's probably Google trying a closest name match as source for Ckod or anything about it cannot be found.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Closed per the G4 tags on the article SpinningSpark 02:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah)[edit]

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Wah) (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 previously created as Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Taxila) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and was nominated (result: deletion) on December 18, 2014.

That article was recreated on 31st December, and currently serves as a redirect to this "(Wah)" article. I commented, in the "(Taxila)" AfD: ...So, does this place even exist yet? "Upcoming" implies it doesn't. And, given its totally disingenuous name (obviously not in Sweden), I can't help but being dragged toward the conclusion that its ulterior purpose is as a diploma mill for systematic H-1B visa fraud."'

This new article, entirely lacking in references like the last one, contains a link to the "scetwah.edu" website, which looks official. Squinting carefully at the masthead graphics, however, led me to the conclusion that the large red building (presumably the "Swedish" college) is in fact a computer-generated model. This supports my earlier guess that the place is a front, and does not exist in the terms presented.

Lastly, I recommend that every article contributed to by its creator, Absakomal, also be examined. He created his account on December 20th, and immediately began creating articles with an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia templates; I therefore have reason to assume a good chance he's either a sock-puppet of a banned account, a member of a "nest", or both. --Раціональне анархіст (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This is one of several articles that has been created by User:Squeakmore, an editor with a long history of creating articles based on vague rumors and speculation. At best this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON but at worst this is pretty much a hoax since for the most part the article was presented as something that is actually happening. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Tale 3[edit]

Dolphin Tale 3 (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)

Doesn't seem to meet film notability guidelines, including WP:NFF, also seems too soon for such a page. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like vapor to me. Nothing at Google News, too soon for Google Books, nothing at Variety. No references, inexperienced creator, future date of 2017. Has much of the same DNA as a hoax. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Absolutely no mention of a third installment mentioned anywhere. Also this page is just an eye sore, as if the editors are strongly suggesting they want a third film and are trying to make it happen here. --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 03:07, 2 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 per WP:SNOW. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New divisibility by 14 rule was found by Ethem Deynek, Turkish teacher;[edit]

New divisibility by 14 rule was found by Ethem Deynek, Turkish teacher; (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)

Consists of poorly sourced mathematical examples; possibly Original Research. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence that any independent sources exist with which to establish general notability.- MrX 01:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete per WP:NFT. I'd tag it for a WP:CSD#A11 speedy deletion, except for the part in A11 about credible claims of significance; divisibility tests can be useful, so I wouldn't want to claim that this is obviously and totally unimportant. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have originally tagged it for A11 except for that very part. Now that I think of it, a PROD would have been more appropriate, but I'll stick with my choice for an AfD. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this article completely unsourced, the method for testing whether a number is divisible by 14 is written in such poor English that I don't understand how to apply it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to being so badly written as to be difficult to decipher, and having only a probably unreliable, and certainly spammed source, it's wrong, producing a "yes" result for 7. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete whether correct or not (too badly written to easily discern) such a trivial rule has no place here. If it were a notable rule or find perhaps, but the title implies not.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am closing this discussion. The rule described seesm to work only for 6-digit numbers and there is no evidence that the reference given really exists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 4 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. Firstly, can we please desist from using terms like "fanboy" to describe other editors. Secondly, many of the "Delete" opinions here opine that there is not sufficient coverage, but I feel that this view is strongly debunked by the "Keep" opinions which provide such. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace Today[edit]

Embrace Today (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 type of nomination almost always brings the fanboys out, but. Article has been unsourced for eight years, and citation tagged for six and a half. External links are primary or broken. G-search turns up the usual plethora of blog posts, casual mention, YouTube videos and the like. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails the GNG. Ravenswing 00:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 01:48, 18 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, Mz7 (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 2 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 Speaktoit. Michig (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Api.ai[edit]

Api.ai (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 this meets WP:GNG. Prod removed without comment. —Swpbtalk 00:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:29, 18 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – and redirect to Speaktoit. There was a bit of coverage on developer-oriented sites, but it was only launched in September. Too soon to tell if it will become a significant product. Just copy the whole article over to the target article, replacing the rather skimpy paragraph on this product that already exists there. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 2 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. Based upon the strengths of the arguments herein relative to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, the result is to delete. NorthAmerica1000 05:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygine[edit]

Oxygine (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 notability SpinningSpark 18:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 01:43, 19 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to quote WP:NSOFTWARE (which is not a guideline, but an overview which tries to measure software's notability threshold): "It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." I can't find its claim to significance, even with the looser standard; all the sources I've come across appear to be written by the author ([50] [51]), with nominal genuine, independent coverage. Seattle (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Author of Oxygine, Dont Delete, I think Github could be a good way to measure notability: [52] - check number of stars, forks, created list of issues/topics. There is also Oxygine forum where you could check users activity: [53]. Here is list of sources with ref to Oxygine written not by me: [54], [55], [56], [57],[58]. Also I receive emails with thanks from people who found Oxygine very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankinshtein (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, forums and listings are not evidence of notability, which is the principle requirement on Wikipedia for a subject to have an article. SpinningSpark 21:11, 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) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C++.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense if the C++ article discussed Oxygine, but it doesn't and it would probably be WP:UNDUE to merge it in there. SpinningSpark 09:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability; I could not find a single outside source. Also reads a little like an advertisement. Piboy51 (talk) 21:42, 2 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 List of stars with resolved images. Consensus not to have an article, unclear if there's still stuff to merge, but if yes it can be done from the history.  Sandstein  20:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of stellar angular diameters[edit]

List of stellar angular diameters (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 list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of stars known (such a comprehensive list would nearly as long as all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support – If this list cannot be expanded more, then delete it. However, if someone can expand it, I suggest until the top 30 or 40. SkyFlubbler (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes if this is going to exist it must just be a list of angular diameters starting from the biggest and then decreasing through a fixed number. Perhaps planets could be in this too as a comparason. But as it stands the article is pretty useless. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being too big/difficult to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion. The lists can easily be split A-Z if size is an issue. Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a rather bizarre and impossible to maintain list. It falls into WP:NOTDIRECTORY pretty spectacularly. I admit I'm confused by Lugnut's statement that this is a clearly notable topic, and would suggest it is exactly the opposite. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain (but prefer Move over Delete) Measuring the angular diameter of stars is currently very hard to do. I anticipated the list to grow by about 1 or 2 per decade until a space-based mission can do a whole bunch of them in one go. In 300 years the list ought to be a fairly reasonable length and accuracy. As the creator of this article, I suppose I would like it to stay, but if the vote goes the other way, please instead move it to a subpage of my user page (i.e. User:Nickshanks/List of stellar angular diameters) so that I and my descendants at least can maintain it as more stars have their angular diameters measured. — Nicholas (reply) @ 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've watchlisted this and, if it closed as delete, will certainly move it to your preferred subpage. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of stars with resolved images, a much better-quality listing of almost the same information. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Nickshanks, few stars have had their angular diameters discovered, so it doesn't matter how many stars are known, the number of stars whose angular diameters is known is much much less. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Huntster. Anyone with a calculator can take the distance from Earth and the star's diameter and calculate the angular diameter. This information is better suited on the individual stars' pages. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The star's true diameter is not a measurable quantity (except for the Sun), so it is a theoretical quantity based on a stellar model. The angular diameter presented here is a measured quantity. Observables should be available, since they are actual measurements. (hence the problem between model and reality encountered in early Cepheid surveys that unknowingly combined two types of stars, Population I and II, leading to inaccurate distance predictions) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I suppose it's actually the star's diameter that is the calculated value. However, my overall opinion hasn't changed (yet). Primefac (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would that mean that the angular diameters would be added to the information in the resolved images list, or this AfD list would be merged (inappropriately) into that one? Primefac (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On further comparison to List of stars with resolved images, I can't see anything that needs to be merged or added. None of the additional stars beyond the first three have sources to back up the numbers. Either somebody just calculated the angular diameters, making this a tediously silly list to maintain, or we're needlessly duplicating information already available in online databases. Either way, it's just too many stars. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure we can source a better listing, if this survives deletion. At the very least we can add the very first stars whose angular diameters were measured (by Michelson and Pease in the 1930s ; complied at Bibcode:1968ARA&A...6...13B ) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:10, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of spiral galaxies[edit]

List of spiral galaxies (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 list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of spiral galaxies known (such a comprehensive list would nearly as long as all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – SDSS alone detected > 127 million spirals. Such a list is too big. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may as well just use the category for this. The list is too large to maintain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into list of galaxies which could use a column to indicate the type of structure and which has a sensible approach of focussing upon the notable cases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being too big/difficult to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion. The lists can easily be split A-Z if size is an issue. Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is not honest since there must be some other (unstated) criteria for inclusion than just being a spiral galaxy. (Not saying the editors are dishonest. I'm confident that they are sincere.) A reader would have no idea that these are only a few out of millions or billions. The List of galaxies gives a much better picture of the whole situation.Borock (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of WP:CLN. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should have a list of spirals that are exemplary, representative, historical, or exceptional. That list can be called "List of spiral galaxies". We simply WP:EDIT the article. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with this idea. I certainly think that an indiscriminate list of the millions of known spirals would be silly, but a list of highly resolved, or very notable, spiral galaxies would be acceptable, provided that the inclusion criteria were clearly stated in the list introduction. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the merit in this idea. Perhaps the list could be turned into something like list of quasars? StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a reasonable, well-formed list-class article, per MOS:LIST. List-class articles are one of the preferred ways we organize articles on Wikipedia. After I removed the two non-notable entries, the inclusion criterion is pretty clear--to be on the list, the spiral galaxy must have an article, that is, be notable. Notability is the standard criterion for list-class articles. The article could be expanded with a better lead, but doing so is a matter of editing, not deletion. With a clear criterion for inclusion and a well-formed article, there are no policy based reasons for deletion, hence keep. --Mark viking (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we were to limit the list to notable galaxies, it would still contain several thousand, which, while definitely better than over 100 million, is still rather large for a list. Remember, not all galaxies that meet our notability guidelines have their own articles yet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With some editing, and clearly stated inclusion criteria, I don't think this would go against any policies. Currently, all galaxies on the list have articles - that's good! I find this better and more interesting than those useless minor planet lists. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that last statement goes without saying! :) But taking those to AfD would be a useless endeavor, I think, as we have too many editors who will do anything to preserve info on every minor planet that exists, so there's no way they will pass an AfD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the potential size of an article or our ability to "complete" said article, a criteria for inclusion?--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 7 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. Given that no sources have been forthcoming I am taking User:Paulmcdonald's opinion as being in favour of deletion, which makes this unanimously in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Aloha Bowl[edit]

1981 Aloha Bowl (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)

Never played bowl game. In fact, I think this article is a hoax. Google News Archive doesn't come up with anything. ...William 00:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions....William 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is completely unsourced. Furthermore, the content seems implausible. The bowl wouldn't have invited teams if they hadn't received certification from the NCAA, and the matchup is unlikely because Drake was playing in Division I-AA at the time while Hawaii was in Division I-A. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep -- If proper sources can be found and it's legit, then I say keep. Otherwise it should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Paul McDonald A Google News Archive search for Drake University and the Aloha Bowl comes up with this[59] which has nothing to do with the supposed cancelled game. Here's another search[60] for the Aloha Bowl getting certification. All the articles say it took place in 1982 and none make mention of a cancelled 1981 game. This article has the smell of a hoax or at the very best the work of someone's misguided memory....William 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This was a college football bowl game that was cancelled. This game gets no presumption of notability as a bowl game that was never played, and including the infobox with empty box score is gratuitous and a little bit bizarre. About two sentences of this history (with added sources) need to be merged to the history section of the Aloha Bowl main article, and the rest can be consigned to the editorial dustbin. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've changed my !vote. I've conducted multiple Google searches, and reviewed all of the sources in the 1981 and main Aloha Bowl articles, and I can find no reference to the actual scheduling and cancellation of the 1981 Aloha Bowl. In the absence of any reliable sources, this article needs to be deleted rather than selectively merging content to the main article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:53, 2 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. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Beirut MidWest[edit]

Leo Beirut MidWest (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:GROUP with only a couple of press releases as sources. McGeddon (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 10:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article appears to be about a Leo club. I see no indication that this particular club rises above others of its kind. No reliable source coverage to pass the WP:ORG bar. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 25 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 12:56, 25 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 00:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per failure to meet WP:GROUP. Vrac (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Sukumar project[edit]

Untitled Sukumar project (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:NFF and per WP:CRYSTAL. There should be a speedy criteria for articles like this one. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could make a redirect myself beside dragging it here. But there is not even a name for the project. One can't just make 'untitled/unknown' redirects. WP:BALL-Wikipedia does not predict the future. When principle photography will begin it is going to have a "name" and one have to create an article for the same title. I see no sense in making "untitled" a title and therefore a redirect. And, contrary to the Kailash29792, I don't see how making a redirect is supposed to based on WP:NFF guideline. There's not even a single line on making redirects on NFF or NF page. Thanks! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:46, 18 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 12:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Mr Anupmehra and too early not yet finalized and shooting has not yet started .ரவி (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:00, 3 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  02:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beebarian[edit]

Beebarian (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 just a demonym for people of Brahmanbaria. This is more like a dictionary entry, not encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, Vanjagenije is correct. Transwiki to wiktionary, and soft redirect there.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. NOTE: There are only a few region specific demonym in Bangladesh used widely (e.g. Siloty for people of Sylhet Division). Most other names are just colloquial and would not appear in sources. – nafSadh did say 17:54, 18 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 12:01, 25 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 00:13, 2 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). NorthAmerica1000 05:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alaigal[edit]

Alaigal (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)

The article has no sources asserting to its notability. It is a very long description of the plot and the cast It reads like a PR promo from the TV network. VanishingRainbow (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 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 11:49, 25 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 00:11, 2 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. Wizardman 02:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John norberg[edit]

John norberg (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)

The prose is written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article; I fail to find reliable sources that backup the article; I deeply question the notability of the article; The author appears to have an obvious conflict of interest and created another misspelled version of this article with almost exactly the same content: see John norberb. I think it's clear this shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but I'd like a second opinion. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (discuss) @ 18:30, 1 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. Michig (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Bee of Canada[edit]

Spelling Bee of Canada (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lots of google hits, but most of them are Wikipedia mirrors, address listings and other trivial mentions; the only significant coverage I've found is this and this, which still aren't that in-depth. If kept, it would need major fixing--as it's completely unreferenced--and it would be at risk of becoming a permastub. SBOC does good work, but at least right now it does not seem to be notable; perhaps in the future it would be. ekips39 08:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 20:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) @ 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 18:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include [61], [62], [63], [64]. Additional sources cover winners of the spelling bee, and includes some coverage about the organization and events, although the winners, rather than the spelling bee itself, are the primary focus of the coverage in these latter sources: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. NorthAmerica1000 05:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a clear-cut case, as it appears to fall under WP:BARE (unless I'm being totally thickheaded and it's actually well within GNG). I too noticed a good deal of coverage of spelling bee winners but didn't link any of it because I thought it was too trivial, though perhaps I should have. Since this may ultimately be kept I'll try and get around to fixing it up. (I'd love to see some more participation, though--anyone?) ekips39 06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I appreciate the discussion between Ekips39 and Northamerica1000. The best of first four references listed by Northamerica1000 is this one. I think that with it and other coverage, the program is notable. From 25 years of operations, I would expect that more statistics and overviews should be available (not yet found and reflected in the article though). In that best reference and some others, I gather that the program is meant to energize minorities and immigrants especially; the article does not yet reflect that. The organization's website doesn't state that either, as far as I can tell, but the founder's expression of regret that relatively few young black Canadians were in the finalists seems interesting. I think it'd be a better article if some indication of that wish and imperfect accomplishment could be expressed. As a charitable non-profit program, we don't need to be so concerned about promotion. It seems like a great program, interesting to learn about, worth allowing Wikipedia readers to find out about it. For U.S. charitable nonprofits, I often get some info about them from Guidestar (with free account) to add to articles. I don't know the corresponding source for Canadian ones, but I may try to find out and to add something to this article that way if I can. Keep. --doncram 03:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, there are quite enough sources; thanks to Northamerica1000 for pointing them out, and to Doncram for giving some pointers as to what to add to the article. I'll get back to improving it when I have time. (There was a list of spelling bee winners before I removed it, and I would have liked to keep it in but was unable to find sources for it. Anyone else who finds sources is welcome to readd such a list. There are news stories covering some of the individual winners, but my fear was that a list built from these would be incomplete.) ekips39 15:30, 8 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  02:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remigiusz Maciaszek[edit]

Remigiusz Maciaszek (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)

My original prod stated "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Deprodded by creator after the following expansion: [70]. I still think it fails, per WP:NOTNEWS: passing coverage in sources of poor reliability and few seconds of spotlight on tv is not enough, IMHO. Nor is a game box mention sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 20 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, Michig (talk) 14:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as it stands this article will presumably either be soft deleted or kept as no consensus, but if kept it should be moved to RockAlone2k as per the norm; as examples, we have articles located at "PewDiePie" and "iJustine", but not at "Felix Kjellberg" or "Justine Ezarik". Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 6:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the available sources are insufficient to establish notability. Deor (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goldco Precious Metals[edit]

Goldco Precious Metals (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)

Sources provided are press releases, blogs, the Better Business Bureau and other trivial directory listings that do not impart notability. A quick Google News search[71] also reveals only press releases. Even if they were notable, practically speaking the article would be better-off starting from scratch to avoid the promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (tell) @ 18:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Including Heritage Gold Group in the searches appears to be enough to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not find either this company or its subsidiary Heritage Gold Group to be notable. Coverage is routine, "awards" are trivial. Not actually surprising since the company has been in business less than 10 years. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see coverage beyond press releases. --Michig (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources do not sufficiently support notability.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Pickled Surface[edit]

Eco Pickled Surface (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 removed an external link, but really think the article should be heaved over the side. It concerns a process which is apparently a manufacturer's or inventor's pet name for its/his procedure (it's unclear if the process is implemented technology or only a design proposal). The article has sat around for five years without meeting proper reference requirements. Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Yes, it is about a process, but it's OK to have an article on a product or process. See COR-TEN. It has proper references in the form of two papers, one published in an industry magazine and the other in the proceedings of an industry conference. It does lack footnotes, but this form of referencing is allowed. It's called a general reference (see WP:GENREF). I have added URLs to those papers, and one of them can be downloaded. A quick check indicates that it supports the text without being a copyvio. Also the technology is implemented. I added cites saying that it was a finalist for an industry award in 2013 and was approved by GM and Chrysler for use in cars in 2014. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:45, 22 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability supported by at least two references. Does not violate WP:NOT in any way. ~KvnG 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 18:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There do not seem to be independent references that give this process significant coverage. Both references given are by the inventor, it seems. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Jelloman (talk) 23:37, 8 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 Survival horror. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspense in horror video games[edit]

Suspense in horror video games (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 comes off as an essay to me. Maybe it could work if it was re-written and more sources were added involving the subject but a little doubtful. GamerPro64 05:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Survival horror The article appears to be an essay, so we don't really need Suspense in survival horror as an article. Instead, it can be merged as a new section in Survival horror. 'Nuff said. Snowager (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NorthAmerica1000 14:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 18:22, 1 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. The consensus was that the awards meet notability requirements through coverage. I make no decision toward those who have received coverage from the award. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 British Academy Scotland New Talent Awards[edit]

2010 British Academy Scotland New Talent Awards (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 notability for these awards or "upcoming talent" -- which means not yet notable-- and I think very few of the winners have a WP article yet. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The awards are recognised by IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000124/overview) --ChrisGFA (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rising star award hasn't been removed from the 67th British Academy Film Awards article even though the same applies. --ChrisGFA (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (talk) @ 18:22, 1 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 & rediretc to California Golden Bears#California spirit. (Closing as M&R so Nom or whoever should do the rest, Cheers) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bench (University of California)[edit]

The Bench (University of California) (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'm not convinced this meets WP:NOTABILITY. There are several possible incoing links to redirect to, but I didn't know which one would be most appropriate / not cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (witter) @ 18:21, 1 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_2&oldid=1142625993"