Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 January	23 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theraography[edit]

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

Unsourced OR, poorly written. Seems to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Someone else tried to AFD this, but only put a redlinked nom on the log. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: you are right/wrong on nearly all accounts :-) it is a cut'n'paste of a company advert. I deleted most of content because of this. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete A promo of proprietary trademark of unknown notability. Company was sold in 2009. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy. No notability demonstrated or claimed. Was this cut/paste job actually just a test of the technology being discussed? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Rudko[edit]

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

Not notable person. No evidence of reliable secondary sources to confirm notability. Being a wine judge, and authorizing an online post do not satisfy notability requirements. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can't find significant coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete No independent verification of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is not currently salvageable. I am willing to userfy if anyone wants to take a crack at rewriting - just let me know. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CounterPath Corporation[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement, cited primarily to the company itself instead of to independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a venue for corporate self-promotion. K7L (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: WP:G11. There's too much advertising to bother digging in to see if it's notable. Vrac (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are more than enough third party cites to be WP:GNG. Yes, it is too promotional, but that is something to fix, not a reason to delete. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: False nomination: plenty of independent references in the text. The language is neutral, ie not "blatant advert" (if I missed something, easy to fix). Surprisingly many wikipedians confuse product desrtiption with "advertisement". Reasonable notability: Publicly traded company, multiple industry awards, claimed #7 in Canada in mobile telephony. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is marginal, but the article is promotional enough to WP:TNT anyway (which looks to be the deletion rationale rather than notability). The creator of the page is an SPA whose only edits were to create this promotional article, an article for one of CrossBeam's products, EyeBeam (software), and various edits to other pages to link to those two. The article has all the hallmarks of paid editing, too: content that would be just as at home on the company website, a long list of awards, long bulletpointed company history/accomplishments, and a massive spammy list of mostly horrible references (i.e. compiled for length). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are two WP:SPAs, not one, one of which (which I won't name...) has the same name as appears on the company's press releases. WP:COI is clear. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeBeam (software) was already nominated for deletion once, but oddly only on notability and not as clear corporate advertising. It's also a mess of self-serving press releases and long lists of minor accolades from obscure trade publications which exist just to sell advertising to companies in this one narrow industry. Upon reading both articles, it isn't clear from the text why these are notable topics. There's too much fluff here to find any real substance. Furthermore, X-Lite and eyeBeam look to be built on the same code base (as of X-Lite 3.0) with X-Lite the lobotomised version. We don't need three pages about this company... I'm not confused; this isn't a useful product description, it's an advertisement. K7L (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If one were to gut all of the non-encyclopedic material, we would be left with a tiny stub and still no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:NCORP, particularly CORPDEPTH. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on a WP:TNT basis, I think there might be enough here to meet WP:CORP, but with signficant phrasings taken from press releases scattered throughout the article ("lets Canadians use their wireless numbers to enable single-number reachability by talk and text"), a copyright clean and removal of mild but consistent promotional non-encyclopedic language will fundamentally require a rewrite from scratch. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAC Vasanth[edit]

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

This page was previously deleted on 2 January 2015 and appears to be the same as the deleted version. Kges1901 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. The article was previously deleted per CSD A7, but I feel that the article does contain a credible claim of importance, per the subject having performed in several countries and per the awards he has received. Furthermore, the article does not qualify for deletion per CSD G4 because the previous deletion was not based upon a deletion discussion. Keep because the subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include [1], [2], [3]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -I'm seeing here a complete lack of WP:BEFORE. Subject meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG standard, -for "significant coverage they have received in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources", such as, -[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc.. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seeing sufficient sources to meet WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yanel[edit]

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

Yet another CMS, with no third-party references. Fails WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean with third-party references, references like for example

https://www.openhub.net/p/yanel/users or http://stackoverflow.hewgill.com/questions/419/968.html

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwechner (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean reliable sources providing significant coverage of the topic. I can't tell at a glance what the former URL is supposed to establish, but the latter is a self-published source (a StackOverflow clone). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yanel is used as foundation CMS framework for the website of Zwischengas. I am the CTO of Zwischengas and therefore confirm this reference. Zwischengas is the largest platform about classic cars today in the web. I know many more projects that are based on Yanel today but being not the owner of those, It won't help much to mention them here. --Mulsanne74c (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would encourage Mr. Wechner to review both WP:GNG and WP:COI to understand why this article fails notability (lack of secondary coverage) and also why he should probably not be editing this article. PianoDan (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references, and none to be found. Presumably promotional. LaMona (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Ricans in Germany[edit]

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

No refs, no evidence of notability of the subject. The article is tagged so since June 2014. Of course, I am sure there are P-Ricans in G, but is this subject notable? North/Central/South Americans constitute 0.5% of German population. I guess, P-Ricans are somewhere around 0.0005% Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. It's not an accident the article has no sources. Vrac (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, virtually no content. Note that same editor has created Americans in Germany with not much more content and the same number of references (none). Perhaps there was a plan at some time to complete these, but it hasn't happened. LaMona (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a quick search for any notable sources. As a German I am not aware of any significant developments for Puerto Ricans in Germany (maybe regionally somewhere, dunno). An increased immigration rate isn't notable in itself (for a separate article). If this development leads to more news or other notable events, an article can be re-created anytime later. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 28 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. Other than the author who appears to have a COI, no one else supported keeping this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tepperman's[edit]

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

Borderline Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11, but article has been around for a while, so posting to AfD. Ongoing WP:COI issues from WP:SPA aside, Still seems to fail WP:GNG. Gaff (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) comment by nom: can somebody fix the infobox? I tried to no avail. --Gaff (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the person who made the changes and I'm still editing the page. It was brought to my attention that things like the history, head office location & product offerings were incorrect so I've been updating them this afternoon. I'm new to the Wiki editing process so I apologize if I'm still learning the protocols. Its my intent to edit in accordance with the rules so please let me know what I should be doing differently. Ntepperman (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* @Ntepperman: Thank you for your interest in building an encyclopedia which is free of bias and self-promotion. Since you have an obvious conflict of interest, being a member of the family, it might be best to just step back and watch the process unfold on this article. Please see WP:COI for details on that topic. As for my reasons for nominating the page, I cannot find reliable sources independent of the topic, to satisfy WP:GNG (general notability guidelines). If you have such references, you could either add them to the article, the article talk page, or here at this discussion. --Gaff (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't only appear to fail notability, it's one huge advert for something I'd imagine most people have never even come across, given that it serves a small proportion of one Canadian province. May I suggest that should this prove to have enough 3rd party sources to prove its notability, and warrant a wikipedia article, that the writers prepare it externally first, then submit it for clearance via WP:AFC so that any niggles can be erased from the word GO. Sorry. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 23:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would make a great entry in a local history or a genealogy database. I hope that Ntepperman finds the appropriate venue for it. Unfortunately, WP is not that venue. LaMona (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've done substantial additional work to this entry over the last few days, specifically:

Fleshing out the company history;
Editing out subjective content;
Adding references & cited sources;
NOTE: My goal is not to create a "promotional" piece. Please suggest/ make further edits.

There is already plenty of precedence on Wikipedia for pages such as this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furniture_retailers_of_Canada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furniture_retailers_of_the_United_States

As far as notability is concerned, I believe this business passes the notability test due to factors including:

Age: 90 years;
Volume: Top 75 Retailers in North America
Size: 350 employees
Market area: 2M+ population
Influence of related parties: includes national political candidates & major journalists; business & related parties have won numerous municipal, national & international awards & recognition; significant charitable contributions to community organizations (7 figures);

I look forward to additional feedback. I'm going to be on vacation for the next 14 days so I won't be able to respond prior to about 2/15/15.Ntepperman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully the Wikipedia policy on notability and corporate notability. Especially read the exception list on the corporate notability policy. The "notability test" revolves around third-party resources about the company, not a measure of the longevity or size of the company. Information about births and deaths in the family, unrelated content by members of the family about other topics (the CBC shows), and blogs are not appropriate sources. I believe that you may have sufficient sources about the company here, but the article veers off topic from the company to the family members, and it needs to stay with just one topic. Removing the elements of the article that are not about the company will make it easier to understand whether notability is met. LaMona (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+Comment - NTepperman, you talk about there being precedence for other articles on Wikipedia - plenty of stuff exists on here which in all fairness, probably shouldn't. Similarly, we're missing loads of articles we should have. Claiming that things should be here because other things are already here isn't that great a plan. It's down to you to prove what you post is Wikipedia material, we merely deal with it when we don't think it is. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: digging into the reference bombardment reveals a lot of stuff not relevant to this company, duplications, minor mentions, sources that are not WP:RS, etc.... fails WP:CORPDEPTH Vrac (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at this article and its history, all I can see are WP:COI and WP:POV issues. Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AdaptCMS[edit]

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

Yet another CMS. Has been labeled not notable since 2010, and still no reliable third-party sources have been added. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find sufficient third party coverage. PianoDan (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CMS software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:53, 26 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Le Roy[edit]

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

I can't find enough refs to get this past WP:GNG or WP:Author Gaff (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published author whose works have not received enough attention to be notable. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author's main product PAF Method(Partnership against fear) was part of the Learning World TV show, translated in 13 languages and broadcasted worldwide by EuroNews. Her method is also used in a few schools in France and Romania. She also got more media coverage:

Romanian news agency: http://www.agerpres.ro/social/2013/04/23/interviu-antropologul-simona-iacob-le-roy-dezvaluie-secretele-integrarii-emigrantilor-romani-cu-studii-medii-in-franta-10-13-52 http://www.agerpres.ro/media/index.php/cultura/item/184944-EXCLUSIV-Bihor-Graiul-taranesc-limbajul-preferat-de-multi-ardeleni-din-diaspora.html

Romanian newspapers: http://www.bihon.ro/povesti-cu-printi-si-printese-pentru-romii-din-paris/1242998 http://www.money.ro/romanii-cu-studii-medii-se-integreaza-bine-in-franta-daca-sunt-informati-si-deschisi-la-nou_1247050.html

France radio station: http://www.franceinter.fr/player/reecouter?play=468299 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianmn (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are those reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything here or in the article that qualifies as significant coverage in a reliable source. See also WP:NOTPROMOTION. Vrac (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change-ad[edit]

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

Product stub, self promotion, never edited --- GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article; A Prod notice on the grounds of product non-notability was removed without comment by the article creator. Somewhat surprisingly, it has survived for another 4 years. A dead link for the company website and multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) turn up nothing to indicate that the world ever noticed its existence. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability and reliable sources are non-existent. - Pmedema (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not verifiable, and doesn't seem notable. Esquivalience ^t 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War in Somalia spillover in Kenya[edit]

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

Page is a duplicate WP:POVFORK of 2011–14 terrorist attacks in Kenya. Instead of seeking a rename of the original page on its talkpage, user apparently duplicated it via a fork with minor formatting changes, then tagged the original page for merger into his/her fork. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, article seems a near duplicate with a few things minor things added (i.e. infobox and 2015 section) since it was copy pasted a few days ago. Anotherclown (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. 26oo (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back, per nom. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete - per statements made above. 72.192.210.100 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (gas) @ 20:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

火車[edit]

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

This is a dictionary entry. I don't see why a translation of a Chinese ideogram would deserve an encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is a disambiguation not an attempt at an encyclopedic article. The disambiguation is necessary because the same Chinese logographs can be read as Hanshi, Hanja or Kanji with each having a different meaning and reading. Each reading leads, for the most part, to its own article, for which these logographs are the title in the original language. The only dictionary definition is the Chinese one, but this has been included so as to disambiguate the other uses.--KTo288 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)This comment has been slightly rewritten to clarify, see diffs for the earlier version.--KTo288 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_15#Category:Disambiguation_pages_with_Chinese_character_titles for the rationale for having such disambiguation pages in general.--KTo288 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Korean and Japanese entries are search terms in a language related to the topic. The Chinese one can go. Siuenti (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a disambiguation page for the same East Asian ideogram that transliterates differently into English depending on the source language, not an article or a dictionary entry as the nominator claims. See similar discussions at WP:Articles for deletion/南山 and WP:Articles for deletion/南山 (2nd nomination). There is a well established category of dab pages like this, see Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Siuenti. The Korean and Japanese entries are appropriate disambiguation entries. The Chinese one is currently a bit too ambiguous to be included. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many examples of Chinese characters for disambiguation, and they serve a useful purpose. Need a much stronger reason to delete. Forbes72 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but there is at present no basis for including entries for Steam locomotive or Train as neither of these mention the characters 火車. The other articles do clearly indicate the characters as an alternate name. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's also the original name of a viral video. Just google "holy shit piss". Timmyshin (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 20:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open bowling[edit]

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

This seems to be wp:original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a hasty nomination. See Bowling Fundamentals. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep . This article was produced by sloppy splitting from Ten-pin bowling. Bowlers-wikipedians need to be alerted. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why not re-add back in to Ten-pin bowling ?, Anyway I can't seem to find much but then again I'm no bowling expert which is what we need right now!.... I'll just go with Keep & Improve although if anyone did wanna shove it back I have no issues with that. –Davey2010^Talk 02:04, 28 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 consensus to delete. Per Dirtlawyer1's suggestion, I am willing to userfy upon request. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Catalon[edit]

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

non-notable WP:NCOLLATH Deunanknute (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Here's a case of WP:TOOSOON if I ever saw one. Delete as of now, but if BJ ends up going high in the draft, reconsider the decision. In the best interest of Wikipedia, ~Ngeaup (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a "prospect" is a sign of not yet being notable--WP:TOOSOON. He fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as of now. Most of the coverage I'm seeing is all routine.--Yankees10 17:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is more than enough coverage in reliable mainstream sources on his college career to surpass WP:GNG: 1-CBSSports "VIDEO: B.J. Catalon returns a kick 94 yards for the score"; 2-Alabama.com "Watch TCU's B.J. Catalon 'play dead' in end zone on kickoff return ruse vs. Oklahoma"; 3-SB Nation "Why longtime underdog TCU is a 2015 national championship favorite"; 4-Dallas Morning News "How TCU plans to cope with toughest stretch in more than half a century"; 5-ESPN.com "Rewind: Baylor 61, TCU 58" ; 6-Fox Sports "Ranking the top 10 most viral college football stories of 2014 "; There are hundreds more, and they go far beyond just a mention-in-passing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all seem extremely routine to me.--Yankees10 04:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feature articles are not routine. WP:NOTROUTINE explains.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football player. I just reviewed the six links provided by Paul above. None of them constitute a "feature" article (a feature article is in-depth coverage of the subject, where the subject is the primary topic of the article), one of them is a blog (SBNation), three of them are primarily video clips (CBSSports.com, Alabama.com), and the others fall somewhere between trivial mentions and routine post-game coverage. One and two-sentence mentions do not constitute significant coverage. That being said, this guy is on the sports media's radar screen, and I suspect he will be the subject of multiple features in the run-up to the start of the 2015 season, cementing his notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. The closing admin should offer to userfy this article for the creator or anyone who requests it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 26 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning in a tropical cyclone[edit]

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

This is a tricky one. After several years of being a userspace draft, this became an article last year, but some months later it was converted into a redirect to Tropical cyclone. This redirect was the subject of a long discussion at RFD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 16) that I've just now closed as no-consensus: nobody favored keeping it as a redirect to its current target, but people were split between sending it to a new target and trashing it entirely, although the trash-it-entirely produced concerns about whether it were good to delete the whole page's history. I've restored the article in order to make it more convenient for AFD; nobody's supported keeping it as a separate article, but it works for temporary purposes and as an excuse to come to AFD.

All this said, I'm bringing this here as a way of getting outside input on the page. You can suggest retaining it as an article or restoring it as a redirect to tropical cyclone, but I'd advise against it because nobody supported those routes. Consequently, I'm strongly suggesting that you support deletion or advocate the RFD suggestion of making it a redirect to lightning, although you could also propose a different target. I'm aware that this is unusual and not the normal use of AFD, but this is an IAR situation; it's convoluted and can't simply be resolved through our normal processes. Nyttend (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Nyttend for taking this step. I'm equally comfortable with a keep or delete outcome. A merge may not be necessary, but what I really don't want to see is another redirect to an article where the subject of lightning in a tropical cyclone isn't discussed. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please show up who isn't equally comfortable with both :-) Or if you are, please agree to a supervote if we don't get consensus here. Nyttend (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from what I remember from the Rfd discussion (it was some time ago) we roughly established that lightning occurs by the same mechanism in any sort of storm, so lightning which occurs in a tropical cyclone is no different from lightning which occurs in storms generally. It's not ball lightning or something that is clearly (or likely) not regular lightning where there has been separate or focused scientific study. We might just as well create lightning over water or lightning striking a maple tree or lightning in a refrigerator as redirects to the lightning article. I'm not opposed to keeping the redirect per WP:CHEAP since it already exists and is harmless, but this should not be a separate article, and there is nothing to merge. Thanks Nyttend for bringing this here, I think this discussion will be a good resolution to the Rfd stalemate. Ivanvector (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would make a good redirect if there was anywhere suitable to point it, but as the best we can come up with is just plain lightning, where it isn't discussed specifically (and my recollection is similar to Ivanvector's) I'm not opposed to a deletion, sorry Nyttend! I do thank you for bringing this here though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I just don't want this to end in "no consensus" as well; that's why it would be nice if people would "officially" agree to let the closing admin to supervote if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to closing admin I notified all of the RFD participants about this AFD upon opening it. My meaning is probably clear enough already, but in case it's not...I'm strongly in favor of deleting-or-redirect-to-lightning, i.e. I really don't want anything else to happen, but I'm neutral between those two options. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lightning in a tropical cyclone in and of itself is not notable. The only plausible redirect would be to lightning; however, lightning in tropical cyclones is not mentioned there, and it does not really make sense to add it in there specifically because there is nothing really unique about it. I find it unlikely that people will directly type "Lightning in a tropical cyclone" into the URL, so that rationale for keeping the redirect is out. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basically my rationale at the RFD; however, in the case of it being an article, it just seems incomplete, and too specific. Anything that is or could be mentioned here should be at Lightning, but as I can tell right now, I don't see a good option for pointing this title specifically to a section in Lightning. Best to let this go away, for now. (Also, Nyttend, thanks for pinging me!) Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's really no reason to redirect it. Otherwise, we'd need redirects for "Lightning in Iowa," and "Lightning in Argentina," etc. etc. There's probably plenty of articles about both, but so what if there's nothing fundamentally different about this type of lightning? PianoDan (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LWC summed up my feelings about the subject. Lightning, while rare near the eye-wall of a mature tropical cyclone, is a common byproduct of thunderstorms and really can not stand in an article by itself as a specific happening. I've read about hail in the eye-wall which is a rarer occurrence, but just the same, it is just a meteorological phenomenon that is already covered in its respective article. Supportstorm (talk) 18:35, 29 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 deleted as G7. Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple[edit]

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

2nd nomination; first nom was ended as WP:G7. The original creator reposted the article again with no substantial improvements. Any references are again to WP:SPS and the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Drm310 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator now inexplicably moved the page to Topic:Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple. --Drm310 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...which, as the namespace for WP:FLOW, means it can't be moved back (at least by me)... ansh 666 22:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unsuccessful in moving it back, as have two admins. I have contacted members of the Flow team/WMF via email about this, and hopefully they will be able to help. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to delete Topic:Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple using Twinkle. As the user blanked the page at 17:23, January 22, 2015 (his last action before he moved it into topic space), perhaps we should leave it at that (G7: one user who requests deletion or blanks the page). We still need an answer to the Flow question though, as this type of inappropriate move into topic-space is bound to recur. (cross-posted at WP:AN) -- Diannaa (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocentrus caeruleopunctatus[edit]

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

Lacks enough information, only has a few words ToonLucas22 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest criterion 1 speedy keep. Being a stub, even a bad stub, isn't cause for deletion. This article was nominated literally two minutes after initial creation. And there's no doubt that it's a valid topic for an article: a validly-described species of fish on the IUCN Red List (in under a minute of searching, here is a book reference if more is needed). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Vrac (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Killarney Celtic[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football team, who have only played in junior cup competition JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability, have played in the FAI junior cup, not the senior cup. Also highest league level is Munster Senior league. Murry1975 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence of notability, all I can see is that they have played the Munster Senior League, which is said to be amateur league. QED237 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable team. Never played in a national competition per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 15:49, 29 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. Multiple guideline-based arguments in delete !votes trump sole unqualified keep !vote. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SMC532[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how to manual. No evidence that this is a notable product such that a valid article could be written, but even if it were, this is not the article that we would write about it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok,i'll delete the Most details part make it more like an encyclopedic reference Aulyp (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aulyp: Based on what sources? I haven't found any reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable module, reads like an advertisement. Deunanknute (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source for SMC532:SEE, YOUTUBE have the VIDEO Aulyp (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me,how to write this Article adapt Wikipedia rules,Please give some tips，i'm a new in Wikipedia,and want to contribution something.Aulyp (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a product brochure. Even if this is notable, then we'd have to start from scratch. @Aulyp: See WP:Your first article, WP:42, and, as a reference, Pentium and MOS Technology 6502. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the Interpretation and guidance from WikiDan61,i would find some reliable sources for the SMC532. thanks agian

Aulyp (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ShinyCMS[edit]

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

Non-notable software, says even its main author, Dennymeta (on Talk:ShinyCMS). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per software creator (that's a first for me!), fails WP:NSOFT. Vrac (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable unreleased software with no reliable sources. Not much else to say when even the creator of the ~~page~~ software knows that it's not notable. I think this can be snowballed. - Pmedema (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmedema:: that's the creator of the software, not the article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Thanks for the point out. Crossed out and changed. :) - Pmedema (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CMS software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. PianoDan (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swachhta Walk[edit]

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

Non notable fun walk, although it generated some local press it was just a fun walk. My kids school does the same thing, doesn't make it notable Gbawden (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local 'event' Deunanknute (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable small local event. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Glad to read that such a walk was organized to spread awareness regarding cleanliness, but this doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -WP:NOTNEWS. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strehler (CMS)[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of open source software. Sources are affiliated and I couldn't find any significant sources that are not. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable, no outside coverage Deunanknute (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the objectiveness of the List_of_content_management_systems, as well as of Wikipedia itself, I needed to create the Strehler_(CMS) stub article. The references I linked are from the project's official Web sites and projects development pages. If such sources are not recognized by Wikipedia as reliable and my article will be deleted because of that, please explain why in Wikipedia, and in List_of_content_management_systems exists many articles which sources are also only from the project's site and the development repositories? Here is a short list of such articles:

...

I will be thankful, if you explain what else need to be done in order to be create an Strehler_(CMS) article for it to be included in the List_of_content_management_systems as the above mentioned articles are.

I have no affiliation with Strehler_(CMS). Moreover - I have also written another two stub articles (Galileo CMS and ShinyCMS) concerning other content_management_systems written in Perl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iva.e.popova (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Iva.e.popova: You would need multiple, reliable, non-affiliated sources that establish the software as significant in some way, as detailed in the WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT guidelines. Regarding all those other CMSs, that's just Wikipedia's backlog. Thanks for the list, I'll go through them to see which ones need discussion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, with a lack of reliable sources of information. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CMS software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Snow (attorney)[edit]

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

With all due respect to the subject, who is doing tremendous job for our community, I totally agree with the rationale for the 2nd nomination by User:Scott Martin: "This attorney who was chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees for a short period does not pass the requirements of WP:GNG. Even the best source given in the article, this CNET article, is unable to spend more than two sentences on him. Google Web, News and Books searches do not produce any coverage of this man that passes the standards set at WP:BASIC. Note that he is not to be confused with the attorney Michael Snow at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP in Minneapolis, who has had some press coverage in relation to making large political donations." The article has been in fat deleted in the 2nd nomination, but recently recreated following an argument that the AfD last year had only a single vote (for delete), while the first one in 2009 was a snow (pun not intended) keep. Well, let's try to keep this one going until more than one vote had been cast. And let's keep in mind this is not a vote. All keep votes from the 2009 argued that there's substantial coverage. There isn't, I am afraid; having one name appear in passing (usually being cited for a sentence or two) even in NYT and other premiere sources is not sufficient - this is not "substantial coverage". A substantial coverage is when one is being written about (is the subject), and there's not a single source like this out there. PS. This bio should not be deleted, but transwiki'd to meta or the Foundation wiki; it's useful - but keep in mind WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid AfD argument for en-wiki._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You can't make someone notable just because he was on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. WP:GNG is having significant coverage and not just mere mentions which is what a lot of the sources about him are - mere mentions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any sources indicating notability Deunanknute (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am glad a more thorough discussion is taking place I would like to note that WP:BASIC does say "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", though most are trivial there are a few sources which are specifically written about him such as:

ABA Journal
Bloomberg

Other sources which mention him trivially include [10], and [11]. I remain neutral on this subject at this time, but would like to see whether the opinions of editors such as Finlay McWalter, Cirt, Juliancolton, and Ksnow who have edited the article or participated in past discussion have changed their consensus. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get 404 for Bloomberg, and the ABA is not "specifically written about him such as"; he is just cited there, and since the entry is few sentences long, his quote is a major part of this "stub-story" :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the article titled "Michael Snow: Executive Profile & Biography" in Bloomberg Businessweek. Strangely, it does sometimes come up as "undefined" when you follow the link posted above. I suggest that you try to reach the page by browsing Google's search results instead and following links from there. The web page does indeed contain an 82-word biography of Michael Snow in the section of the page headed "Background". Other sections give the address, phone and fax numbers of his "corporate headquarters" and a link to a list of board members affiliated with him, in addition to repeating some of the information in the biography. James500 (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most competent people aren't notable, that's simple reality. Being the chair of a non-profits board of trustees for 2 years is not inherently notable. There's no "wikipedia exception" except if its non-mainspace. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Walsh (January 2014). Snow could be shown to be notable if we found, say, two major newspapers profiles of him, but I don't see any.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think his former position as chair of the board of trustees, his founding of the Wikipedia Signpost, and the coverage he has received, taken together, might add up to notability. If he does not object to the existence of this article, I don't either.
The biography in Bloomsberg Businessweek isn't short enough to be classified as "insignificant" on the basis of length alone. The canonical example of insignificant coverage (concerning Bill Clinton's high school band "Three Blind Mice") is a single 14-word sentence that (arguably) says nothing of importance and could be conveniently merged into an obvious target. Significant coverage certainly doesn't require two profiles just for the sake of having two. Nor does it require the article topic to be the primary subject of any of the sources. If you were going to argue for deletion, I think it really ought to be on the basis that BLPs are a special case that require far more coverage than other topics. To say that the WMF is not a exceptional case is to ignore the fact that the vast majority of charities do not run the seventh most popular website on the internet or possess the awesome level of influence that comes with that. James500 (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James500, you are essentially making an independent value judgment, which may not be incorrect, but is not how WP:GNG operates. I'm not saying two profile articles on Snow are absolutely necessary, but that is usually sufficient to turn the tide of any BLP AFD, if they get found. I don't give much credit to the Bloomberg entry[12], because that's basically an investor information database. As wikipedians, we have the authority to create an exception to GNG and BLP rules for WMF chairs, but we don't have one currently.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:44, 27 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 snow delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (2017 film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON or WP:HAMMER surely. Don't believe it meets GNG, hard to find sources with such a generic name Gbawden (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy until 2017. TOOSOON by 2 years. We are not IMDb, we cover films after they get some coverage, not before. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL and not to be funny, but this film isn't even on IMDb. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any info on the movie, very little on McMahon and Skiff, and, of course, it doesn't even release for 2 years+ Deunanknute (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. I can't find any info about the alledged production company. Looks like a vanity page at best. MarnetteD|Talk 15:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Fails V. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Boleyn (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL seems the most apt of the range of links offered. No sign of notability right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unreferenced, non notable fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG could have been speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete yes per being TOOSOON, but Theroadislong we generally do not speedy (a different criteria than notability) film topics if some sort of sourcing is available allowing the topic to at least be written of somewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panama City Jaguars[edit]

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

From what I can tell this team never played. Their website doesn't exist anymore and I believe they fail GNG Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage, reliable or not, about this "team". Fails notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I can find says they are 'scheduled' to play, but no info on anything actually being played Deunanknute (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can see the team never existed. They might have been planning for it to exist, but apparently it never materialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable American minor league women's football team. There is no mention of this team in the main WFA league article, and no indication the team ever played a single game, let alone a complete season. Subject fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lips Are Movin#Music video. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lips Are Movin (music video)[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary CFORK from the original article "Lips Are Movin". The whole content is easily merge able to the parent article and this should be deleted. There are tons of more important music videos which would deserve a separate article but not this. Lets not make this a hagiography of Meghan Trainor. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge User:Winkelvi claims that the music video makes the song article WP:UNDUE when it does not and the music video is very relevant to the song article itself. The article can simply be expanded with more info on the song to balance the supposed "undue weight". The user has also done the same at All About That Bass (music video) which I have redirected and requested consensus at Talk:All About That Bass. - Lips ^{are movin} 11:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lips, I tweaked your indentation and your "support" to the traditional keep. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Judging by the text of their comment, I would say that Lips Are Movin's vote is actually a "Merge" vote. Steel1943 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm--that's not how I read it. User:Lips Are Movin, please check my reading skills and tell us, "merge" or "keep". Drmies (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant "merge", thanks for pointing out. - Lips ^{are movin} 16:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an unnecessary content fork from the song's article. Unlike Michael Jackson's Thriller, the video isn't notable enough for its own article. -- Calidum 13:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't this be merged into Lips Are Movin#Music video? Some of the information is useful and well sourced, but I don't see the point of having a completely different article for it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without a doubt. Main song article isn't very big to begin with. No need for the split. G loss 13:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - very few, if any, music videos are notable separately from the song they represent. This isn't one. Ivanvector (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. No reason to lose this information, so might as well merge it into the song page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - I've never seen articles on both the same video and song ... Anyway Merge seems better imho. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The parent article can still accommodate the expansion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lips Are Movin#Music video - If you see my edit summary during page creation, it was "Temporary creation to see what happens". And if consensus leans toward merging, I am going to support the merge. MaRAno ^FAN 11:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I don't see anything to merge since the four paragraphs in the main article are already hefty enough (that is, overkill). Drmies (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not beneficial to reader experience to have a separate article on the song's music video. The music video is not separately notable, content should be in article on the song to best serve the public.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lips Are Movin#Music video while not enough for a separate article, and I'm not sure how much should be merged, this is definitely a plausible search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:14, 27 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. Daniel (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qamaruddin Chishti Sabiri[edit]

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

unreliable \ no references\ self published, looks like ad of un notable person Summichum (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article appears to be an unsourced hagiography and currently fails WP:V. While the subject may be notable, a Google suggests that reliable English language sources are lacking. It is possible that sources may exist in languages other than English, and I will happily reconsider if adequate sources are found. However we don't keep unsourced articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contest Delete Sufis/Saints usually do not leave that much references to fulfill wikipedia's requirements. Its validity can be observed if it is not contested. The reason of noteworthiness is that Hafiz Qamarudin is the only Successor in Pakistan of a Sufi branch from an established order from Shah Moinuddin Khamosh of Hyderabad Dekkan, India, of Chishti Sabri Order. I have attached a newspaper article of established newspaper to establish Hafiz Qamaruddin presence and settlement in Pakistan. The Sabri order is already very less documented in history in comparison of other sufi ordes, and same is at wikipedia. These hagiographies establishes chains of succession of sufi orders and are very vital to establish spiritual lineage. That is the purpose of this article. The matters related here are observed first hand or heard. You are welcome to otherwise delete the article meeting your verification standards, which could not be fulfilled ever in these contexts. Wikipedia shall remain empty in case of hagiographies which otherwise establishes Succession Chain of Sufi orders. -Munkasir.zeeshan (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:V is policy and it is non-negotiable. This is an encyclopedia and we require sources for anything other than completely trivial or commonsense (see WP:BLUE) material. Your comment above largely confirms that this article consists mostly of original research which is another no no on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There don't seem to be any sort of mention of this person at all in published work on religion in South Asia or even work specific to Sufi orders. There are some Youtube videos and mentions of the subject's name on discussion forums, but nothing which comes even close to satisfying WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 26 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 that the article is better than it was before, but still consensus to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beam[edit]

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

I came across this article via a request at REFUND. The article was to be speedied as a copyvio, but I declined it since it was from a site that mirrors Wikipedia. The article was previously deleted back in 2009, but the AfD didn't have all of the sources that I've since added to the article and a very large concern over how promotional the article was written. (You can see the original state of the article here, which is essentially how it was written in 2009.) Now the claims to fame are pretty much the same, but I don't entirely think that this qualifies for G4 since there are more sources here. I'd just feel better if this ran through a second AfD as opposed to just speedy deletion, so we can say that the current sources were taken into consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Celebrity hanger-on who hopes fame will rub off on him. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck a sockpuppet's edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the subject of the article has received multiple mentions in reliable sources, no source, other than the presently used LA Times article, that is non-primary or secondary appear to provide the subject significant or in-depth coverage to verify that the subject meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:ARTIST. If someone wants, this article can be incubated and worked on in an editors non-article space, until which time sufficient reliable sources can be found that meet the criteria set forth in any applicable notability guideline for inclusion in this project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still fails WP:GNG and there might be enough references for a redirect but not much for a separate article. VandVictory (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Reuben[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN Mattlore (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete has not played highest grade level in Australia. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Clubs National League[edit]

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

non notable WP:NSPORT Deunanknute (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a deletion from 2015, the reasons for which have triggered a "speedy deletion" in 2022. Elite Clubs National League (ECNL) is now sufficiently noteworthy IMHO.

The league has pretty much jettisoned the previous branding, relying on ECNL instead of the full name spelled out.
ECNL now involves around 60,000 youth players in the USA at any given time. For girls aged 13-17 it is the top level of soccer competition in the USA. ECNL Girls is the primary pathway to women's Division I and professional soccer in the USA. Almost all US Women's National Team players spent years at ECNL
ECNL is also starting to get a lot of scrutiny and and the public would benefit from a Wikipedia page covering the topic. For example, there is currently a major scandal being exposed in the National Women's Soccer League and many of the problems appear to have originated in ECNL.
The structure of many youth sports in America is changing rapidly, for better or worse. National-level club leagues like ECNL are replacing high school sports as youth recruiting venues for universities and professional leagues.

PeteWL (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a deletion from 2015, the reasons for which have triggered a "speedy deletion" in 2022. Elite Clubs National League (ECNL) is now sufficiently noteworthy IMHO.

The league has pretty much jettisoned the previous branding, relying on ECNL instead of the full name spelled out.
ECNL now involves around 60,000 youth players in the USA at any given time. For girls aged 13-17 it is the top level of soccer competition in the USA. ECNL Girls is the primary pathway to women's Division I and professional soccer in the USA. Almost all US Women's National Team players spent years at ECNL
ECNL is also starting to get a lot of scrutiny and and the public would benefit from a Wikipedia page covering the topic. For example, there is currently a major scandal being exposed in the National Women's Soccer League and many of the problems appear to have originated in ECNL.
The structure of many youth sports in America is changing rapidly, for better or worse. National-level club leagues like ECNL are replacing high school sports as youth recruiting venues for universities and professional leagues.

PeteWL (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting a deletion from 2015, the reasons for which have triggered a "speedy deletion" in 2022. Elite Clubs National League is now sufficiently noteworthy IMHO.

ECNL now involves around 60,000 youth players in the USA at any given time. ECNL Girls is the primary pathway to women's Division I and professional soccer in the USA. PeteWL (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Struggle to see how this league could call itself "elite". Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting a deletion from 2015, the reasons for which have triggered a "speedy deletion" in 2022. Elite Clubs National League is now sufficiently noteworthy IMHO.

ECNL now involves around 60,000 youth players in the USA at any given time. ECNL Girls is the primary pathway to women's Division I and professional soccer in the USA.

Your 2015 point is noted. "Elite" may have been aspirational in 2015, but the league has grown its member players from 2,000 in 2009 to 60,000+. Also, it appears that the league itself recognizes that the connotation of the word "Elite" has changed from 2009 to 2022 and goes by ECNL. PeteWL (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jones (AI Researcher)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Young academic of promise, but as a topic, not as yet meeting guidelines for inclusion. Gaff (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has a single uncited publication in his Google scholar profile, clearly not passing WP:PROF#C1, and there is no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Per both comments above. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have to agree. No evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also pointing out that this article on Chirs Jones (born 1976) was written by WP:SPA Cjones1976. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 27 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. —Cryptic 01:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rapping[edit]

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

non notable per WP:BIO Deunanknute (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as an academic: See, e.g.,

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2.

I deleted you headline because your claim is frivolous User talk:dghavens 03:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide a discussion or even a proper citation. Rather, you made a conclusory claim with no merit when the article clearly meets notability.User talk:dghavens 03:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I mistyped "MacArthur Fellowship" and did not realize it qualified someone for an article. Deunanknute (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No proper argument for deletion and it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. JT_dale^Talk~ 15:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saul V. Levine[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:AUTHOR. Tgeairn (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His books might be the best basis for notability, but I haven't found significant coverage of them in reviews. Note that there is a Saul Levin in the US who is a notable psychiatrist. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty old guy; these times not much reviews online. Staszek Lem (talk)
Keep Does meet WP:ACADEMIC (held a position of named professor) and WP:AUTHOR (8 books), his works are cited in books .Staszek Lem (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Staszek, where is your evidence that he held a named professorship? That would be convincing to me, but if so it's strange that it isn't listed in his UCSD profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got to looking at that in more detail and I can't tell if they are trying to list him as having been the "Stanford Professor of Psychiatry" at U. of Toronto or whether there is just missing punctuation and he was an instructor at Stanford and a professor at U. of Toronto. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks like a missing period to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The section appears to be cut/paste from here. However, that page is the only result in a google search for "Stanford Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto". I can't tell if is was a named seat and is no longer, or if he was on loan to U. of Toronto from Stanford (which appears to be most likely given other search results). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's some possibility of notability through his book co-authorship. The University of Toronto Press, at least, is respectable; I haven't heard of some of the others. And his book Radical departures has significant library holdings and at least one published review at doi:10.1037/h0098843. But I couldn't find more on this or the other books, I don't see a lot of citations in Google scholar, and the "named chair" thing above seems to be completely spurious, a misreading of a typo. So my mind could be changed if more evidence turns up, but as it is I don't think there's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep under WP:PROF Head of dept and full professor at university of California-- that's not a formal requirement, but no full professor there has ever had their article deleted unless in a field where there's some felling here that it isn;t serious.At least some of the books are important: Radical Departures is in 528 libraries, a/c WorldCat. It has an impt review in Psychology Today Vol. 18, no. 8 (Aug. 1984), and presumably other sources. Medline unfortunately does not index book reviews.,so they are not easy to find. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @DGG: Just a note on one item - being a department head and full professor do not meet the NACADEMICS requirements (see the specific criteria notes for criteria 6). I do not dispute your other statements, and at the same time I don't think that they raise the subject to notability. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to discover a case in the 20th/21st century where the Univ. of California Davis or a comparable major research university gives someone the rank of full professor without their being an authority in their subject, which is the basic requirement of WP:PROF. They're much more qualified that we are to judge such things, because of their collective subject knowledge, and have much more interest in doing it carefully and rightly because the reputation of their university and their ability to recruit other notable faculty depends upon it. Department chairmanships are nowadays normally rotated among the senior faculty--that is, among those who are already notable; there are exceptions here, especially in small departments. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep h-index for PROF C1 is marginal, but a review of a book he cocreated by Kent P. Schwirian in Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Aug., 1981), pp. 753-757, when added to the Psychology Today review DGG describes, can be seen as meeting one of the final clauses of AUTHOR C3, and that's good enough for me. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Rothstein[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Tgeairn (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's attracted considerable press. I found a large amount of coverage of his opinions and one article entirely about him on the occasion of his 50th birthday. He's also co-edited at least one prestigious book (for Cambridge University Press) since the article was put together, there's at least one archived program on Danish Radio that is him sharing his opinions, and there are a large number of citations of his work on new religious movements. I've filled out the article with a lot of Danish sources, but there are also brief mentions in the New York Times of one of his statements. Clear pass of the GNG, in my opinion, and I believe he also meets WP:PROF for his influence in his field. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can tell, the sources seem to be independent and cover him substantially. Borock (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:BASIC notability criteria for WP:BIO. The provided references show the subject has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as Kristeligt Dagblad, Politiken, and Berlingsle Tidende. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I originality closed as Keep but nom was a bit unhappy so to keep everyone happy I've reopened. –Davey2010^Talk 02:34, 28 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 userfied to User:Zachlp/Damion Lee --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damion Lee[edit]

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

Does not meet either WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page as he initially began to receive looks from multiple NBA scouts. There is a very high chance that he will be playing professionally at some point, and has a opportunity to finish his career as one of the most successful players at his college.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Please note that I copied and pasted this for the commentor from this page's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume he'll be an NBA (or equivalent) player.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage and fails WP:NHOOPS. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damion Lee receives a good amount of media coverage in Philadelphia, a city which heavily values college basketball. Already a candidate for CAA player of the year, even as a junior. --Zach Pepsin (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then delete. Player fails GNG for now; he might be notable in the future so move current article to User:Zachlp/Damion Lee. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then delete per Jrcla2. This guy is a good enough player that I believe he will become notable, but I can't find the sources to establish GNG right now. I think saving the work in the creator's userspace seems like a good compromise so it isn't wasted. Rikster2 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then delete I appreciate your consideration and I agree that this would be a fair move. As stated above, he will likely become notable, and if/when it happens I would be pleased to move the page back when the time comes.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 18:19, 26 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. Speedy tag was for copyvio but I would also have accepted nn-band as a reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margot & the Nuclear So and So's[edit]

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

Articles related to a Band which does not seem to meet WP:NBAND and the albums fail WP:NALBUMS. All also seem to fail WP:GNG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 04:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transworld Aviation[edit]

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

Non-notable company, one reference which is a broken link, article consists of two sentences and an infobox. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH and with only one aircraft, I can't see that changing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Along with the other defunct airlines in the navbox at the bottom of the page, perhaps added for the sake of completeness when they were founded? None of them lasted very long. and none look notable enough for a separate article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was operation for a number of years with a Boeing 737 (search for images of JY-TWC) so is of note, agree not a very good article but no need to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owning one large plane makes them notable? That seems unlikely.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not notable it is the fact they operated services with the aircraft that makes them notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That't not how it works I'm afraid. Read WP:CORPDEPTH which is fails. Non-notable company. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability is of further use in that regard. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence it was a scheduled airline, so it is presumably not notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: probably because it was a passenger airline operating a freighter. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hot_Action_Cop#Discography. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Up! (Hot Action Cop album)[edit]

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

no claim of significance, it exists is not a good reason Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite what the article says, I can't find any professional reviews. There's a user review on Sputnik, but that's about it. The title leads me to believe that redirects would not be especially useful. Nobody is going to search for a title with a parenthetical disambiguation. It could be added to the disambiguation page for Listen Up, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added it to the disambiguation page. I guess maybe I'm not as lazy as I thought. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Becky. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Action Cop - I did find a review, but that's not enough to make the album notable. Redirecting to the band would be the best thing to do. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:39, 29 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 The Shape of Things to Come. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Zimmern[edit]

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

Following a Talk page RfC, consensus appears to be that Luke Zimmern was not a real person but rather a fictional creation of H.G.Wells in The Shape of Things to Come. JSTOR, Google Books and Google Scholar return no references for someone who, if they are real, is apparently a noted German economist. It is also possible, given that The Shape of Things to Come was a fictional book, that Wells based a fictional Luke Zimmern on Alfred Eckhard Zimmern. They clearly knew, or were aware of, each other as they were writing on the same subjects. This paper for example discusses their different sides of the same argument. Alfred Zimmern, like the supposed "Luke Zimmern" was a social scientist writing on the same subjects. Add this altogether - the same, unusual, surname, the same time period, the same occupation and the same subject matter plus being known to Wells... It's just speculation but there's a lot of coincidence suggesting that Wells simply created a fictional character based on a real person. I suggest a redirect to The Shape of Things to Come but feel given the age of the article and the relatively small number of contributors to the RFC that there's a chance for a broader discussion first. The RFC can be found on the talk page (permalink). QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no references whatsoever outside of Wells' book. Everymorning talk 15:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shape of Things to Come per nom. This is (I hope) a link to the first page of results of a search for persons named Zimmern at the German National Library; there is no Luke or Lukas Zimmern listed. That's pretty definitive, but to be sure I checked the title (under both Entwickelung and Entwicklung and also simply Kruppismus and the author on WorldCat, with no hits. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A really unusual case. Wells cites other sources in The Shape of Things to Come that are genuine, such as Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet and Philip Snowden, 1st Viscount Snowden. The article creator probably believed this was another one and created this article in good faith. As a fictional character, though, subject's single reference in passing doesn't come close to satisfying WP:N. Calamondin12 (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. People have been wondering if this person is real for at least a decade. Pax 08:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Shape of Things to Come - This is a very rare AFD which I have no idea what to suggest for the best, To put a long comment short - It's very very unlikely anything beyond now will ever be known of Luke and the book and at the end of the day we may aswell preserve what's in the articles history for now and redirect back to HG Wells, We all could be wrong but we'll never know and as I said I don't think we will ever know so I'm going with Redirect per nom/above. –Davey2010^Talk 02:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Without clear evidence that he actually existed, I think we have to treat this the way we would treat any other minor fictional character in a notable work. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to The Shape of Things to Come makes sense to me per the above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deor (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisville, Alberta[edit]

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

No third party sources to establish notability. Does not meet MOS:CA#Article or redirect?. 117Avenue (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - See WP:GEOLAND. Permanently inhabited places are almost always notable when they can be proven to exist. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JTdale: Can you prove this place is inhabited? 117Avenue (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I withdraw my objection. I misread the article. I'm afraid American systems are quite different to my states, where this would be a 'suburb'. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it actually fails WP:GEOLAND. It is not populated. It is not legally-recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs. It is not recognized whatsoever in the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base, in the Alberta Geographical Names System (can be ordered for free via AESRD), or by Statistics Canada.
This external link is a WP:SELFPUBLISH link. This source published by the Crown of the Continent Geotourism Council, which does not appear to be a WP:RS, indicates there was no store and no post office. Rather it indicates all Harrisville had was a church and a one-room schoolhouse that served as the centre for what appears only to be a surrounding rural area known as Harrisville. This source relates to the church being a registered historic place and in fact confirms Harrisville was a "rural community".
Like at the similar AfD for Flowerdale, Alberta, all I am seeing here is this is a larger rural area in which two buildings served as a focal point for provision of religious and educational services for the rural residents. No evidence is provided that any residents lived in dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the two buildings, just residents living in the surrounding rural landscape. There is nothing here that confirms Harrisville in and of itself is or was notable per WP:GNG. Hwy43 (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've compared the prose of the article to the second source closely and much of the prose, I would suggest, is WP:COPYVIO. I am tempted to delete all this content as a result. It is definitely WP:PARAPHRASE, which may constitute WP:PLAGIARISM. Hwy43 (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Edit it, or tag it, about possibly too-close paraphrasing issue, or remove the passage (and leave a note at the Talk page). Clearly notable: it was a rural community, sources provided. Good use of Wikipedia to provide short description of former communities, for reference. --do ncr am 14:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: per above and similar discussion regarding Flowerdale, there has been no reliably sourced evidence provided that this place met GNG at any time during its existence in order for NTEMP to apply.
As for the copyvio concern, I'll tag it ~~for now as removal~~ with Template:Copyvio upon closure of this discussion if necessary as tagging it now would blank the page, and with it blanked it ~~of the majority of prose in this article during this open discussion~~ would create confusion when trying to cross-reference the above evidence back to the article. Hwy43 (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my Keep view, as I do at Flowerdale discussion. Confronting/opposing every different view does not help your case. Harrisville was a community. Note the historic site description for the Harrisville church describes the community:

St. Stephen's Roman Catholic Church is located in what was once the rural community of Harrisville. The community was made up of immigrants from a diverse number of ethnic backgrounds that were united in their Roman Catholicism. Harrisville was thus an enclave of European and Canadian settlement in an area settled predominately by American Mormons. / The social development of the community was organized around St. Stephen's Church and the school district. Catholic church services were originally conducted in the homes of the settlers by Oblate priests from Standoff. The Standoff Mission had been established in the 1880s as part of the Oblate mission in southern Alberta. In 1900 the community made the decision to construct a church. In December of that year, the men of the area made the trip to Mcleod with six teams and sleighs to purchase materials for the building. Volunteer labour provided by the area residents completed the church in August 1901. It occupied land provided as a grant from the Crown in February 1901 to the Catholic church. After the building was damaged by high winds in 1901 and 1904, it was rebuilt at its present location in 1907.

Named communities are gazetteer-worthy; Keep per wp:GEOLAND and common sense and general practice in Wikipedia. --do ncr am 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, providing additional info helped the nominator's case at the other AfD by triggering a withdrawal of an objection.
Per my message at the other AfD, I have provided greater detail than what can be gleaned from a surficial view of the article, and provided the context of Alberta’s communities and municipalities for the benefit of the nominator and all current and future contributors to the discussion. At least your position has been informed by much more than bare minimum. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per my comments on the Flowerdale AfD, there are other sources out there than the usual ones; and not all are searchable google-wise, but are PDF-type pages or other non-google-reactive pages, like the City Directories and historic newspaper archives et al.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:doncram. Free-falling through lost history is one of the pleasures of Wikipedia. Pax 11:59, 21 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, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be enough concerning the church/cemetery, etc. to meet WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEM is not the notability policy for churches, how is the church notable? 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it's a registered historical place which at least in the US would satisfy WP:MAPOUTCOMES. I guess we could move this to an article about the church with a redirect for Harrisville, Alberta. I could support that given that the article is already mostly about the church/cemetery. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - So every little old building gets an article? That seems to violate WP:GNG to me. The notable historical sites in Alberta are listed at List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Alberta and Provincial historic sites of Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Verifiable populated community, and per doncram.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it had at least a school district, so it was a genuine community. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may not be inhabited now, but it was in the past - as such, it meets the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Super7 (band). Our policy strongly recommends against deletion during a merge, and no argument was made for the pre-merge deletion. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suka Suka Super Seven Dan Idola Cilik Dalam Habis Gelap Menuju Terang[edit]

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

it brought in less than $20,000 - not significant except as a failure Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Super7 (band). No evidence of sufficient notability that indicates a standalone article. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per the consensus to ignore this thing receiving coverage in Indonesian sources (sigh) ~~Keep~~ per having sourcable notability to Indonesia. Yes, Indonesian topics are difficult to source, but when sources exist an article is usually improvable... just takes some doing. That it was a box-office fail is not a valid deletion rationale. And while I will never see this myself, the poor stub that was nominated is now somewhat better. What say Legacypac? Kikichugirl?Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge into Super7_(band)#Filmography. While Sidomi News is possibly RS (I say "possibly" rather than probably because the site is wholly devoted to dubious tabloid-style celebrity gossip), the rest of the references appear to be promotional sites, theater listings and brief film synopses. Pax 11:17, 21 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) 00:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Super7 (band). No evidence of sufficient notability that indicates a standalone article. @NnAs (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super7 (band), which is also pretty thin on verifiable notability. Dai Pritchard (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just flagged this reviewing new articles. Happy to see it merged and redirected as per other editors. Legacypac (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Wanta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A biography of fringey-looking allegations about a living person, tagged for a few years at this point. WP:PERP may apply, WP:BLP certainly does, and WP:TNT may as well. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has indeed been tagged but I personally do not see the issues. The article was kept last time for the improvements and I see no difference. Improvements at an article should not be searched for during an AfD, but at the talk page. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke. While the Illuminati "trillions" nonsense has been removed (and the edit-warrior involved blocked), the CIA ruble-conspiracy nonsense remains as an unpalatable compromise between all or nothing. (Fast-forwarding to the present, contemporary thinking is that the KGB plundered Soviet coffers during the collapse and squirreled the funds overseas, then later used them to finance Putin's ascension; such would tend to suggest that blaming the US was propaganda.) Not one of the note and reference links lead to any easily examinable information. Push the button and put it out of its misery. Pax 10:44, 21 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) 00:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite receiving a few passing mentions in various books what do we actually know about the subject? Very little as is clear from the article. Certainly not enough to write a biography. Perhaps the information could be used in other articles but there is not enough to justify an article of his own. Seems fairly clear he has not received "significant" coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete. This article is almost an attack page; it consists entirely of poorly sourced allegations. No way does it meet our BLP standards. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 31 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. This does not bar the continuance of a discussion on redirecting or merger via the usual channels such as the talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worker Student Alliance[edit]

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

Page has been tagged in 2008 for not having any sources. It still has no sources. No reliable secondary sources can be found making the subject non-notable. Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve with this source and many others. A simple search of Google Books reveals many sources.--TM 17:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first link you put up is a link to a book that mentions the organization once. That it resulted from a split of another micro political organization. It doesn't mention anything beyond that. The other one you put up is a secondary source, but hardly seems to be reliable. It offers no citations and is written by a relatively unknown journalist. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Students for a Democratic Society. Pax 09:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a Merge-and-Redirect, it strikes me that it should be to Progressive Labor Party rather than to SDS. The fact that this is a question indicates to me that this article has a rationale for existing independent of either of those two articles, even if it was a "front group" of the PLP in the SDS... Carrite (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the strand of hair split three ways (a common tactic of these incestuously intertwined front-groups is to form multiple clones, each handling a nominally different aspect of agitprop, with all the head-honchos in different upper-echelon bureaucratic capacities in each). The fact that one of the SDS strands managed to garner notability is not argument for automatic inclusion of another. They're all the same octopus. Pax 08:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is almost certainly a GNG pass, the SDS and the PLP being big fish in the world of 1960s radicalism. Carrite (talk) 09:16, 21 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) 00:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SDS and PLP have their own articles already. I don't see how the easy GNG pass applies to this topic. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think maybe a merge to Students for a Democratic Society would be most appropriate. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge to Students for a Democratic Society - It's a tough one. I think there's enough to get by the GNG (several hits in academic databases and ghits connected to 60s politics, new left, youth politics, labor, marxism, etc.). The question, however, is whether there is enough material on the WSA beyond talk of SDS to merit a stand-alone article. I'm not sure. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although notability is somewhat limited it does appear that the organization is notable, thanks to their reliable sources. Aerospeed (Talk) 14:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that other than apparently-non-independent sources, there is no reliable coverage and a lack of evidence of notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Watson's Potteries[edit]

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

No indication whatsoever of notability. Copyvio from the day it was created, now removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pottery seems to be about 300 years old and so there's plenty of material to be found. Andrew D. (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I looked for sources that can dmeonstrate notability, and found nothing in Google web, news, and books. Only things like the company's own home page, and business directories. Reyk _YO! 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some variation in the search keywords is required to tease clues out of Google Books. There seems to be detailed coverage in sources such as Ceramic Age, Queensbury Hunt, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History and The English Country Pottery: its history and techniques. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first two of these are passing mentions, which I found myself and did not judge significant, and I cannot find any mention of "Henry Watson" at all in the other two. Can you provide the page numbers on which this significant coverage occurs?Reyk _YO! 18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books doesn't make this easy but I was content with the indications I saw. Anyway, I find there's a substantial online source which can be seen more fully:- Henry Watson’s Potteries .... Andrew D. (talk) 19:16, 17 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) 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- While there do seem to be passing mentions of the business in some sources, they fail Wikipedia:Significant coverage. The archaeological source Davidson points out might make a good addition to the Wattisfield article, though. It even has a paragraph on pottery making already. Forbes72 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeological source contains a six page history of the company which is more than enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. That source refers to a parish history which also contains details of the company. Adding this material to details of Wattisfield would be done by merger, not deletion. That's our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I cited significant when I meant significant independent coverage. If this research was independently published and not directly funded by the family, then I have no concerns. It's simply that quotes that imply close connection like "Post-excavation work relied heavily upon material provided by Mr Jeremy Watson" and the fact that it is located at www.henrywatson.com, which is also a retail shop, raise questions about its independence. Forbes72 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There was some pretty average arguments thrust forward to keep the article, but some decent ones too. Definitely no consensus to delete can be found below. Daniel (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Jones (Louisiana politician)[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being the mayor of a medium-small (61k population) town, does not meet WP:NPOL; no significant third-party coverage, just a few passing mentions. Prod was disputed by creator. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Earl_Downs. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to being mayor, Mr. Jones was national president of the Jaycees. There are sources from Bloomberg Businessweek, Shreveport Times (four), Los Angeles Times, Bossier Press-Tribune (twice), KSLA-TV, KTBS-TV, the Jaycees, and a book about his business, political, and civic activities.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a footnote in WP:BIO: ...politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Jones was only mentioned briefly in the sources above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This has been demonstrated in the revised article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, adding masses of automatically generated stuff, primary sources, passing mentions and lists that happen to include the subject's name isn't going to get you anywhere. 90% of the sources in the article now should probably just be deleted - they aren't reliable sources anyway. You're far better off focusing on the 2-3 quality sources (if they exist) that give significant coverage to the subject. Yes, there are "sources" from the news outlets you list above but the majority of them are passing mentions and contribute not-at-all to notability. Often, having 2 good sources is better than having 50 rubbish ones. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not convinced any of his roles were particularly significant and being mayor is not guarantee of notability (mayors of major cities are generally notable). National presidency of the JCI doesn't seem significant - most of the international presidents aren't notable. Passing mentions i routine business announcements or automatically generated profiles (like Bloomberg) aren't "significant coverage". The Shreveport Times article might count but it's very local in scope and isn't "multiple" anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population issue The notability rules says nothing about mayors or the size of their cities. Portland, Maine, has a population 5,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has 24 mayors all deemed notable with their own Wikipedia articles. Wilmington, Delaware, is 9,000 larger than Bossier City, but it has ten mayors with Wikipedia articles. Santa Fe, New Mexico, is 9,000 larger than Bossier City, and has ten mayors with their own articles. Missoula, Montana, which is 5,000 larger than Bossier City, has articles on sixteen mayors. Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is smaller than Bossier City and has articles on 41 mayors. The notability rule says there must be extensive press coverage of a local politician. That's all it says. This is clearly met here with Mr. Jones. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't but the guidelines say, "Politicians [...] who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" and "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Local politicians who have only received local coverage don't fall into that category, in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Jaycee President. This should qualify Mr. Jones in addition to the political material. The president of a state bar association or a state historical association is considered inherently notable for Wikipedia purposes. Therefore, why would not a national (not just state, as he also was) Jaycee president meet the test? Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to that opinion but I don't think it matches consensus on such things. I'd be interested to see the policy or guideline that says "presidents of a state historical association" are inherently notable. Again, the organisation's international presidents aren't considered inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the guideline about presidents of a state bar association or of a state historical association. These findings on notability came from challenges to individual articles. The determination was that the highest public position in their profession statewide made them notable. Of course, there were other factors involved too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though the guidelines do not mention the office of mayor, it would seem that they come under "local politicians" in the Bossier City case. It does not say that the news coverage of these local politicians has to be out of state, though I did find at least one out-of-state in the Jones case. Fairbanks, Alaska, is less than half the size of Bossier City. It has seven mayors on Wikipedia, none of the name recognizable except to a few outside of Alaska. I have articles on seven Bossier mayors that are under challenge. If the Bossier City articles are removed, are you also going to challenge the ones in Fairbanks? Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to see that "determination" but results from other AFDs are not precedent-setting until there are so many of them that they represent a common consensus per WP:OUTCOMES. It doesn't mention mayors specifically but even WP:N requires that topics have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large". I don't think that local coverage in local papers of a local mayor could possibly be considered the "world at large". St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is participating in the discussion. Some six days have passed since the article was challenged, but there have been no participants.Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Three people have commented here. The arguments you've put forward aren't at all based on policy and while you're entitled to your personal opinions, such things are likely to be disregarded by a closing admin. There's not much point discussing those ideas further. Without better quality sourcing to consider, there isn't much more to discuss. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see two people who oppose having the article and no one else NEW who has commented in six days. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commented only yesterday. I still don't get "no one is participating". If there aren't enough comments for an admin to make a decision then it will be re-listed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we delete this guy, then per Billy Hathorn's "population issue" above, there are up to 101 mayors in just five cities whose articles are begging for equal-treatment AfDs. Is this the slippery slope we want to go down? (And I ask that as the recently-spanked AfD nominator of several dubiously kept BLPs few if any of whom equal the current minimal notability of this subject.) Pax 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs aren't precedent-setting. Population is not a valid reason for deleting the articles of small-town mayors, nor is it a valid reason for keeping them either. WP:OTHERSTUFF and other guidelines like it prevent other editors from pointing to this AFD as a valid reason for deleting others. These should be considered on a case-by-case basis and so failing WP:NPOL, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you could provide examples of such, it'd be a different story. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hinging an argument on population, merely indicating whose post I was referring to. Concerning the subject of the AfD, I will straight-up guess that at least three-quarters of those 101 mayors in 5 cities are less notable than this person. But let's hedge the bet to only half. - That means the slippy-slope leads to approximately fifty more mayors from just five cities flooding the noticeboard. I would also counter-argue that AfDs are precedent-setting: once a couple have been deleted, it becomes natural for editors to nominate similar articles and vote on them similarly, and for administrators to close them similarly. My recommendation would be, if we're going to commit to this, that list or table articles be created and used for redirection. (Not only would this preserve and concentrate information, it would prevent article recreation by unknowing editors in the future.) I posed similar concerns at the Nikki Groarke AfD, that one involving clergy rather than politicians. Pax 06:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd only be a couple of days worth of AFD, less if they were group-nominated. With a lack of coverage in reliable sources, these sorts of BLPs become WP:OR magnets. Again, we shouldn't be keeping something because we're scared of the amount of work that might come of it. There's no guarantee it would result in more work (WP:OTHERSTUFF remains a guideline) and if it did, so be it. I'd be fine with a redirect to a list article but this BLP should be deleted while that doesn't exist - the title can always be redirected there later. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is very little significant press coverage in the article. While more and more substantive coverage may exist, most of the coverage that is currently cited in the article merely mention his name or provide a brief comment. The subject is not the subject of many of the articles. The Shreveport paper is the subject's home paper and would be expected to provide routine coverage that is referenced in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cut off for a WP:POLITICO pass for mayoralty is 50,000 in my book. No, that's not a guideline, it just makes sense to me. For a city council member, figure 100,000+. Nice round numbers. Carrite (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though I disagree with it, that certainly is a novel approach. Better than half the policies we have around here. Nonetheless, the population of the city when he was mayor was barely 50,000 and the number of constituents would have been considerably less than that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 21 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) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More population examples. Here are more examples of cities, population, and number of mayoral articles on Wikipedia:

Scranton, Pennsylvania, 76,000, 6
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 50,000, 6
Burlington, Vermont, 42,000, 6
Augusta, Maine, 19,000, 7
New London, Connecticut, 28,000, 5
Terre Haute, Indiana, 61,000, 4
Wasilla, Alaska, 8,000, 5
Hoboken, New Jersey, 50,000, 23
Juneau, Alaska, 31,000, 18
Key West, Florida, 25,000, 8
Medford, Oregon, 56,000, 12
Norwalk, Connecticut, 85,600, 87
East Orange, New Jersey, 64,000, 6
Taunton, Massachusetts, 56,000, 13

Bossier City, Louisiana, 61,000, 10 (with two more possible)

In addition, Bangor, Maine, 33,000, has 8 mayoral but 12 on city council members. Usually, the city council members are not included on Wikipedia unless they also held other offices, or there were other factors involved. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article was marked for possible deletion on Jan. 14, but it does not seem to be on the master listing unless I overlooked it after two checks. The first defense of the article was posted on Jan. 15. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Billy Hathorn: This debate has been relisted. It is now logged under January 22. Altamel (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local politician. First, let's dispose of the size-of-city argument: it has no merit. There is no consensus about how big a city has to be for its mayor to be "presumed notable". Except for the very largest (or "regionally prominent") cities, the mayor has to meet GNG to be included here. And in those larger cities, they are included only because there is a presumption that they WOULD meet GNG with proper searching. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. Second, being national president of the Jaycees or any similar organization does not confer automatic notability. Look, for example, at List of presidents of the American Medical Association and see how few of them have articles here. Finally, the references at the article do not amount to GNG. They are routine local coverage about elections and minor local issues. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply When did local newspapers become inadmissible for local politicians? So long as they are reliable, why would this be an issue? There are many sources here, most Internet based. The Jones article also has him quoted in The Los Angeles Times c. 1987. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further reply Mr. Jones is also in Who's Who in American Politics, 2006-2007, twenty years after he left the office of mayor, and he is included in an article with his photo in Historic Shreveport-Bossier: An Illustrated History of Shreveport and Bossier City (2000). This article is well sourced for the information available. The only way to get more sourced material would be to go through microfilm of The Shreveport Times from 1984 to 1989.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the usual explanation is that local newspapers are unreliable to show notability for local pelicans and local businesses, etc, because they will cover every one of them, regardless of importance, and are therefore unselective. They are of course reliable for their career when an article can be justified. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" - small local newspapers aren't "the world at large". St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have no fixed standard for the size of the city to make a mayor notable. When I came here 8 years ago, the accepted standard was about 100,000; sometimes we have accepted low. Between 50 and 100 000 they usually do get kept, between 35 and 50,000 , sometimes, between 24=5 and 35 000 rarely; below 25,000, almost never, unless the importance of the town is greater than the population would by itself indicate. . There's no clear rule whether the population is at the time of the morality or the current day, because mayors of smaller town that become large cites could be considered notable to keep a series--and because all cities were relatively smaller once, so the historical standard should be lower.

At the time of his mayoralty, the city had about 51,000 people. That's just over the line. Looked at differently, it's the 518th largest--I can see our keeping a cutoff at wither the largest 500 or the largest thousand in the US.

I think this is close enough to get the balance of the doubt. We don;t follow precent, but we do aim for consistency.

But more important, he was Jaycee's national president. This is a major national organization, and president of it justifies notability. As for comparative organizations, the reason the presidents of the AMA don't have articles its that nobody has had the interest to write them--I'm not aware of any of them begin deleted. This is true for most major national organizations where people are interested enough to do the work, in the US or in any other country. I'm sure an article on every last one of them would stand up without much difficulty.

Billy Hathorn knows I have been no fan of some of his articles where he is stretching the limits, and have in fact nominated quite a few for deletion over they years. But this one is fully supportable, and seems to be a well written proportionate and well sourced article . DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 31 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Wehrey[edit]

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

Asserts perhaps marginal notability. An account claiming to be the subject has requested deletion, so per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I've opened this discussion, though I myself am neutral. Wily D 11:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was edited wrong way and it's protected and locked we can't edit it, lots of warning issues which is a bad image, also not fair not to be able to edit it, much better to be deleted or open for edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Wehrey (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by sock puppet struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The author works in high capacity for a huge and very notable DC think-tank, wrote a well-received and accoladed book, and was recently quoted liberally by name in Time Magazine. The subject is thus not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This article was initially created on December 23 (less than a week after the Time article) as an apparent vanity project by the Wikipedia-inexperienced subject, and almost immediately slapped with a speedy tag (much edit-warring ensued to remove that tag); now the subject wants the article removed - ironically after solid reliable sources establishing notability have been found.) Pax 08:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the subject is notable under WP:SCHOLAR. He has been cited by Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Time, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and quite a few other notable publications.- Mr X 19:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There is some good noticeable amount of notability. VandVictory (talk) 17:50, 26 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 Richman (series). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richman 4[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy with the assertion "content is wrong and imnecessary". The game does technically exist (although the year appeared to be wrong, which I've removed) and since it doesn't technically fall under any real speedy criteria I'm listing it for AfD. It exists, but does not appear to be notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richman 4 , also named as "da fu weng 4" , is a famous and classic windows game in great China area. The game is only published by Chinese language, so it is not well known by non-Chinese people. Please reference this link. [[13]] I think the article name can be changed to da fu weng 4 if it is approved by most people. Thanks. Daiquping (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh god the nostalgia, I used to play the sh*t out of 5 and 6. However in the AfD department it would be hard to save this pretty old (1998) game, which would need to dig up older printed Chinese (mostly from Taiwan) materials. Via Google Books I can find [14] noting "Richman 4 was a glorious apex and a turning point for the series" and [15] having a Richman article (although looks to be more focused on the whole series). The online sources I can think of reaches to at most like 5 [16], and the really solid ones don't start until 7 [17]. Peculiarly though, note that this is the only article on anything Richman in enwp, nothing on the whole series or any of the other seven games until 8 (and online and mobile ports). It might be also possible to save this in the form of a merged Richman (series), with the news that a Richman 9 might be coming out [18]. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS No point referencing zh:大富翁4 because that was WP:NOTGUIDE like crazy (in fact also 3 through 8). But I did find a source [19] via their Richman article, that has content for until 6 and lists two awards for 4 specifically. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps you'd be best to make a series wide article and merge it in, if it is on the edge between definitely notable and maybe not? JT_dale^Talk~ 01:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a prototype of sorts at Richman (series), partially referencing zh:大富翁系列. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No notable issue. Keep as a stub. Daiquping (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Richman (series) article that yarouin just made makes this article unnecessary. If the series article grows enough to make length a concern, then maybe we should consider a split, but until then, I see no reason to insist that a ~~one~~ two sentence article get its own separate page. Forbes72 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hegseth[edit]

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

An IP is insistent on adding a {{db-person}} tag, saying it "needs to document notability". To avoid a silly edit war over a CSD tag, I thought it best to bring the discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a news and book search reveals a substantial amount of hits. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and speedy: He's all over the place from the CFR to leading vets groups and a frequent TV talking head. Obviously notable. Pax 02:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA^{[[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|1000]]} 00:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems clearly notable as a leader of veterans and as a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Billy Hathorn (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (me) and no outstanding delete !votes. Everymorning talk 15:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Czech Philharmonic[edit]

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

This orchestra lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources needed to establish that it is notable. The coverage of it online is quite limited, there being only 27 Google results, and those all appear to be passing mentions. E.g. this link is a bio of someone who performed with the South Czech Philharmonic, among other orchestras. Everymorning talk 18:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hmm. I would think that a philharmonic orchestra would be notable simply by existing. They play a concert season every year and get coverage for that. Going to the Czech page and searching on their name "Jihočeská filharmonie" gets 11,000 hits (nominal, not actual). Via the Czech page and Google translate, here is one fairly in-depth story. And here is a story on their new hall. If they are getting a new concert hall built for them, they must be notable. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pretty much exactly as above, Margin1522. Don't think this was a well thought through AfD nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been convinced by Margin1522's arguments and am therefore going to withdraw this nomination. Everymorning talk 15:37, 28 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. Daniel (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debut Box Set – The CD Singles Collection from Debut[edit]

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

Unreferenced, possibly unofficial compilation album. Request was made on my talk page to nominate this article for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Boxset. Unreferenced and never mentioned in any official sources by Björk or One Little Indian records Fabrictii (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Non notable box set just to make money Gbawden (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger McIntire[edit]

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

Seems to be a vanity page. Also falls under WP:ORPHAN, as no other articles link back here. Skudrafan1 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be minimal evidence of notability. The importance of the few listed awards is not clear. There is no evidence that his authorship is widely-respected or important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nonnotable. Minor award, no independent refs. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No major awards, no evidence books have been reviewed, noticed, or read widely. His more recent books are published by summit crossroads press, which the article states he is President of (basically they look self-published). Fyddlestix (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not present evidence of notability per WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of OECD countries by suicide rate[edit]

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

I can't find a reason to separately list suicide rate by OECD countries than all other countries in the world. No indication exists that would suggest OECD countries have higher or lower suicide rate than others. _→AzaToth 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to have a list of only developed countries (because this removes nationwide poverty as a potential factor), and OECD was the only objective criterion I came up with. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Arbitrary selection, inconsistent years, original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the full country list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete subset of List of countries by suicide rate. Would need multiple further RS that specifically discusses the connection with developed-ness and suicide (at which point would at most warrant a mention in (Epidemiology of) Suicide). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability of the study of OECD suicide as a distinct from worldwide suicide. This article just reflects the narrowness of the source. Forbes72 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Practice Provider Executives[edit]

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

I've already removed some refs that were published by the group and some made-up refs. I'm unable to find the following refs anywhere via Google, WorldCat or the publisher's own website.

Hall, Richard (2015). Nursing and Advanced Practice: Best practices. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Brown, Peter (2014). Startups in Medicine: The new era. CRC Press.
Rice, Brenda (2014). Modern Nursing. Cengage Learning.
“Stanford Hospital & Clinic’s Center for Advanced Practice and Advanced Practice Leadership” (2013). Bay Area Non-Docs (BAND) meeting, Feb 2013; Menlo Park, CA

What's left is some valid refs that don't talk about the organization and the organization's own refs. I'm not seeing anything that would make the group notable. The article may have been done by a paid contributor. Bgwhite (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication of notability. Dubious references. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the point where an article is being supported by fraudulent references, it loses the assumption of good faith. Even extremely permissive WorldCat searches fail to find anything like any of those purported books. Bloomsbury's site has no indication of having published anything under any remotely similar title, or by any author by that name. The same goes for the CRC Press book. It's harder to be certain with Cengage (because their searches aren't forthcoming for out-of-print material), but their website still returns nothing remotely similar, and WorldCat agrees. I don't think this organization is notable to begin with, but given the amount of sourcing fraud here, I'd suggest blowing it up regardless (and quite possibly sanctioning the editor responsible, absent some ameliorating explanation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came to the same conclusion about the sources - all the "independent" ones look faked or unverifiable. The editor appears to be a sock of a blocked editor, so we could probably go with G5, but handling it through AfD is likely to be best. I did look for alternative sources, but haven't found anything beyond press releases and non-independent sources. - Bilby (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. BakerStMD T|C 23:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic corporate spam. Article reads like cut/paste dump from PR. Pax 08:22, 29 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.