Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 January	24 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. The consensus is that this individual does not meet the criteria for inclusion as a stand-alone article, with most of the sourcing being about his work in the band rather than him as an individual. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Koehler[edit]

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

Relisting for further consideration because my first nomination failed to generate any participation at all after two relists, and an editor is resisting any attempt on my part to just go ahead with the redirect even though AFD consensus is not required for a redirect. The problem here remains that WP:NMUSIC does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to a musician whose notability is within the context of a band rather than as an independent topic — this article is relying mainly on primary sources rather than reliable ones, and the few appropriately reliable sources are not about Koehler per se, but merely namecheck him within the context of the band. So nothing here demonstrates that he has the independent notability necessary to stand alone as a separate article — if a musician's only substantive claim of notability is "member of a notable band", and he cannot claim independent notability for anything else besides that, then as per WP:NMUSIC he gets to be a redirect to the band and not a poorly sourced standalone BLP. Redirect to Silverstein (band). (Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Told, which did generate participation and was closed as a redirect for the same reasons that are applicable here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The references which were accessible or still there lack any extensive coverage of Paul.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. And in borderline cases, the decision should be not to deny readers the content, which won't be available elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 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 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a fifth listing in less than two months.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be relisted as many times as it takes to generate sufficient discussion to establish any actual consensus one way or the other. It's not a question of "the correct answer" — if there were a "keep" consensus, then the article would have to be kept even if I still disagreed with that — but there has to be a consensus one way or the other. A "no-consensus" close, which is where the first one landed, resolves nothing — especially when it was "no consensus because nobody participated". Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 18 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 23:41, 23 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, - The Herald (here I am) 13:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Only one of the listed independent sources is actually about the person (a very short interview). The others are either self-published, blogs/forums, or about the band silverstein. @Wehwalt: "Content not available elsewhere" should not be in Wikipedia in the first place, as per WP:OR. --Latebird (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of in-depth coverage of Koehler, independent of the band. Merge anything useful to Silverstein, but there's not enough otherwise to meet WP:NMUSIC or CREATIVE. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:17, 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. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Ahmedaalzagtat[edit]

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

Article at first glance appears to be copyvio, -fails WP:NACADEMICS and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, just when I was writing a deletion rationale, the article was nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G11. If speedy declined, we may discuss the article here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete : Fails WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced BLP that does not meet WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:36, 23 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 23:38, 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 merge to Harold Perrineau#Personal life. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Perrineau[edit]

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

Not a notable actress. Her most notable appearances acording to the article aren't even named roles JDDJS (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Harold Perrineau#Personal life; one paragraph should be enough to cover her life as well in her husband's article. Nate • (chatter) 16:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 18:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harold Perrineau#Personal life. I agree with Nate; Perrineua does not need her own article. In the 'entertainer' section on WP:BIO, she fails all 3 points. Her roles are not even named parts. --PDX er1 (talk) 17:38, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne J. Caire[edit]

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

Claims to fame: ran for governor of Louisiana once, garnering 4% of the vote. Took over a general store opened by his father that later became a historic landmark. His son became a judge. That's about it, and as such, I fail to see how this comes close to WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-sourced article about an interesting figure in Louisiana political history: running against Huey Long in 1928, Caire was the last Republican to run for governor in Louisiana until 1952. I don't think our historical coverage of Louisiana politics, and its long term transformation from yellow dog Democrat to Republican bastion, is improved by deleting this content. And, as I noted when I removed the prod notice, if we don't want a separate article, the better solution would be to merge and redirect this content to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928, not to delete it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If by "well-sourced," you mean a lot of references, yes. It's not well-sourced in terms of WP:RS references with non-trivial coverage of the subject. Mention of Caire is already included in Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 4 percent of the vote is the starting point in 1928 for what would later become a majority Republican state, at least for the time being. The article is important to the history of the Republican Party in Louisiana. The Caire family was a major family of St. John the Baptist Parish. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (chatter) @ 19:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 19:58, 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, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 23:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1928#Results. Reliable sources are severely lacking. ~~His obituary, almost certainly written by his own family, goes on at length about his military service, family and memberships in social organizations, but fails to even mention his political career.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject died in 1955; there are few Internet sources available on him. The military part says only "a United States Navy aviator in World War II" in reference to his grandson, who is mentioned because he is Caire, II.Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Wrong obit. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the purely selfish basis that an article this well done leads me to ignore any shortcomings that may or may not actually exist. Pax 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as per Ohnoitsjamie current sources are marginal at best, not clear what Caire's impact has been, other than to run unsuccessfully against Huey Long. Not clear how the article is "well done" considering the borderline references, like findagrave, like L'Observateur (only mentions). Needed are several articles talking about Caire's impact.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Two additional sources, a newspaper and an historical dictionary, have been added. Billy Hathorn (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Arxiloxos. Article is well sourced given the era of his life.--TM 13:06, 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 delete. Stronger arguments on the delete side. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Butthan[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art with no independent coverage. All of the sources are links to articles about the founder and those mention the martial art only in passing. The founder doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria at WP:MANOTE for martial artists nor does the art itself. Being inducted into a martial arts hall of fame doesn't show notability for the founder or the art. Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability. It is a hybrid invention with a nationalist flavour.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor did I see any indication this art was notable based on the criteria for martial arts. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be notable, there is a National Butthan Championship held annually. Zayeem ^(talk) 08:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether this art exists, it's whether it is notable. There's no indication that it meets GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search about Butthan shows several reliable news sources and a search with the Bengali word বুত্থান yields more. However, as indicated from the article it is a new (invented) form of art and mostly devised by one person (Mak Yuree). So, I'm still not sure, if it would pass GNG. An alternative is to redirect it to Bangladeshi martial arts#Butthan. Current article is almost a stub, and thus that would not be much of a problem. – nafSadh did say 23:09, 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) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Young[edit]

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

The only source is a link to his boxing record at boxrec.com and that doesn't show anything that meets WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG and the achievements required to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Amani Singh[edit]

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

Article does not qualify the criteria for Notability. No source of information available Mahensingha _Talk 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Yes, no source of information available. It appears to be made-up by creator. I'm seeing absolute zero sources on Google Books, News, JSTOR, HighBeam, INDAFD search engines, etc. It is hard to believe that for their being king and achievements as mentioned in the article, they were not written in any books, journals, etc. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with some of Mahensingha's other nominations, I am willing to entertain the possibility that this person (allegedly a "king") possesses regional notability, but the condition of the articles (endemic poor grammar & OR by ESL editors) warrant nuking.
Delete - subject doesn't meet the requirements for significant coverage per WP:GNG and is therefore not notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 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 Kutch District. KTC (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Region[edit]

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

article is copied from Kutch District, List of proposed states and territories of India, Saurashtra (region), possibly more, but all info is elsewhere and does not need to be combined here. Deunanknute (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kutch District Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kutch District -Kind of convinced by nominator rationale. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:06, 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) 09:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kayoom[edit]

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

He's not notable as an MMA fighter because he has no top tier fights. His BJJ titles are as a blue and purple belt so they don't show notability. I don't see any evidence that he meets any of the notability criteria for kickboxers.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he did win a World Professional Muaythai Federation belt [1] so that should at least cover WP:KICK criteria. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator - the WPMF title is minor and does not meet WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers or martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Tegner[edit]

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

This is an unsourced biography. My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage. He also doesn't meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or authors (WP:AUTHOR). Mdtemp (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything that shows he meets any notability criteria. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:AUTHOR unless someone comes up with additional sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disapainted[edit]

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

No evidence that this web service is notable. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Ahecht's word "notable" is referring to Wikipedia:Notability, yes, he is right. Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If every Pivot clone had it's own page then we'd have about 15 extra pages just like this, maybe there should be a 'clones' section on Pivot's page. Sunomi64 (talk) 18:05, 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 merge to Corcuera, Romblon. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Corcuera, Romblon[edit]

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

non notable per WP:NPOL, what little info isn't in Corcuera, Romblon can be added Deunanknute (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least based on the reason given for nomination - the WP:NPOL policy gives guidelines for the notability of politicians not the notability of the office. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, and, of course WP:N Deunanknute (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Corcuera, Romblon. Some of the content was actually copied from that page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Be sure the table of mayors is on there. Population is about 10,000, so this does not seem to be a post of sufficient stature to rationalize a freestanding article. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corcuera, Romblon. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - The Herald (here I am) 13:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jonghyun[edit]

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

I do not see the independent notability for this person; a redirect to Shinee ought to be enough. That he maybe co-wrote a song or two isn't enough to warrant his own article, and at any rate the sourcing here is so atrocious (it's all fan sites, allkpop and such) that there is nothing we can say for sure about his actual importance. The actual text in the article is the usual fan stuff, and look at the sourcing for his supposed solo debut--you get the idea: a fan site, a promotional site, a YouTube video. I'll get to the attendant template porn (he's got one for himself, Template:Kim Jonghyun) later. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article itself can use more reliable sources, but he has recently placed #1 on various music charts and he has done some activities outside of Shinee, like SM the Ballad. If this was like maybe a year ago I would say delete, but now he's getting more well known. However, the template can go away and be deleted because not even individual BIGBANG or 2NE1 members have their individual templates if I can recall. Tibbydibby (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a lot of work, but he has recently become independently notable. I re-wrote the solo debut section with refs to reliable sources. --Random86 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Recently, he has become quite notable with multiple awards and a new EP. Additionally, all other members of Shinee have their own pages. Dancingbun (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article receives coverage from reliable sources like K-Pop herald and The Korea Herald. Without this article, the notable EP: Base would become an EP of an artist without an article. This person is borderline notable. MaRAno ^FAN 09:33, 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 delete. KTC (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIXX Live Fantasia - Hex Sign[edit]

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

Delete basically per WP:NTOUR. A few shows do not a notable tour make--first of all, there is no reliable coverage in this article to begin with (it's all fan sites) and there is no discussion of the tour as a tour--it's just a listing of dates and songs. In other words, it's the typical overly detailed fan article. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 23 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 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seven gigs spread over three months is hardly a tour. This article is purely promotional. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both fail WP:NTOUR. No reliable sources, just the fanblog media play. Nothing setting these aside from every other kpop tour. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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) 09:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIXX filmography[edit]

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

This is, essentially, nothing but a directory--a list of videoclips, cameos in TV shows (and those kinds of shows are typically vehicles for the stars, of course), and a long list of other TV and even radio appearances. I submit that whatever is noteworthy can be merged into VIXX, and that the rest is more appropriate for a fan site on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 23 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 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely this violates WP:PROMO, as it's basically a zillion Youtube links and Wikipedia is not a links directory( see WP:LINKFARM). Anything here that's important for an encyclopedia article could be put in the VIXX article, per Drmies. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge selectively to VIXX per the above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the encyclopedic information has been buried within list. I think it's best to delete and write into the VIXX article things of value like their 100+ episode youtube series, or if needed create a new filmography. Either way starting from nothing would be easier than cleaning this one up.Peachywink (talk) 18:59, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghanem[edit]

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

This article is a complete mess. It's not a bio of the named subject, but seems rather to be a loose collection of his political interests. The creator and primary contributor User:Hamada2012 has not edited since 30 March 2013. I see two deletion notices on Hamada2012's usertalk page: one for Egyptian cultural project to the world, described as "a cultural project, innovated by the writer and novelist Ahmed Ghanem", the other for Egyptian Revolution From the perspective of Political and sociological and economic, a brief promotional description of a book by Ahmed Ghanem. On the face of it, this all looks like vanity editing. I haven't asked the user; there seems little point, since they stopped editing nearly two years ago. But promoting Ahmed Ghanem does seem to have been all they did on Wikipedia. The same is true of a new user (I suppose perhaps the same person), User:Cultura italiana, who has also added material to Ahmed Ghanem. I have asked that account about possible COI, and also warned them about using Wikipedia for advertising. They have been spamming basically this note about Ahmed Ghanem over many completely inappropriate pages: Tradition, Heritage, Culture of Italy, etc. I hope to get some response from them. Meanwhile, I think we should delete Ahmed Ghanem as advertising, as not notable (compare Google), and (seriously) as not really an article at all, certainly not within shouting distance of being a biography. Bishonen | talk 15:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 15:33, 23 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 16:43, 23 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 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the whole thing is a mess of broken English, and the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. WegianWarrior *talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* keep the article it's wonder full tobic --Cultura spa (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if he's notable, there's almost nothing usable in that article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socks blocked

keep the article --Moncult (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how ??[edit]

how can we edit a good article about Ahmed Ghanem founder of hte cultural priject Egypt in the eyes of the world ?? --Moncult (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

i think it's important article , but we should organize it well regards`--Kulturaacc (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is very interesting, and very good in my opinion, Can keep the article, but I suggest Coordinate Some of few parts --Kulturaacc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello

I think that Mr Bishonen Prejudiced against the article , But I think that The subject of culture and cultural projects is very important. greeting for all--Hamada2012 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hamada2012. I'm not prejudiced against the article. As I said above, I thought there wasn't any point asking you if you were connected with Ahmed Ghanem, but I see I was wrong, since you have turned up after almost two years' absence from Wikipedia to comment here. How did you learn about this deletion discussion? And do you in fact have any connection with with Ahmed Ghanem, and/or with User:Cultura italiana ? Bishonen | talk 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

don't delet and keep[edit]

--Hamada2012 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article
keep --Moncult (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
don't delet

--Kulturaacc (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep it's wonderfull project < pls keep it .--Cultura italiana (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article --Cultura italiana (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cultura italiana. I asked many hours ago on your own page if you're connected with Ahmed Ghanem. Please reply, either there or here. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I did not leave the Wikipedia all this time, I edit in French and Arabic,and I know the project, and I respect it , and in Egypt. We respect the project very much , so i suggest to keep the article

Greetings to you--Hamada2012 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting farcical. I ask you a third time: do you have any connection with Ahmed Ghanem? Are you that person? You might at least say "I refuse to answer". Bishonen | talk 00:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

keep the article[edit]

thank you --Cairoegy (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This project is respected[edit]

This project is very respected in Egypt and some other countries Why Bishonen insists to fight it ??!!!!!!!!!! --Cairoegy (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to maintain the article

And add a lot of information about the project --Cairoegy (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article[edit]

and improve it thanks --Egyptmoh (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom. A uncoordinated collection of meaningless verbage. Reads like a cut-and-paste business plan written by an intern to try and get a job. Not relevant in any way to Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and could someone block at least Cultura italiana for spam, please? Most of the edits are getting reverted, but this user is definitely spamming pages and causing others unnecessary work. LaMona (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have taken care of all the socks on this page and have warned the master. If there is continued socking, please feel free to message me. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as badly written and poorly sourced mess — the question of whether he has the degree of notability required to qualify for a Wikipedia article is so utterly impossible to answer from the way this article is written that WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies regardless of his eligibility or lack thereof. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a conflict of interest can write and source a properly encyclopedic version which makes a proper claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Pax 08:38, 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.

This page Ahmed Ghanem is now (re-deleted) at Ahmed Ghanem (writer and lawyer). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Walsh[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to AfD after declining a speedy. I think it merits discussion. Many students 'take part' in research that becomes notable, but the extent of their actual contribution to the projects is another matter. Also - is the research here notable? Being a name on a paper is no guarantee of an article on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 23 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 16:41, 23 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 16:42, 23 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 16:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A graduate student having 2 papers with his advisor as corresponding author (about average for a grad student, but not notable for WP) and the winner of an award at a student research showcase (also not notable for WP). The article was written by a SPA and it is often the case that when an article is about a grad student, its purpose is to bolster a job application upon graduation (CV: I have been recognized on Wikipedia). This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Three pubs in Google scholar with max citation count = 2 is far below the standard for WP:PROF (even setting aside the difficulty of disentangling the subject's contributions from the contributions of his more notable advisor James Bamburg) and there seems to be no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Puff pieces in school-affiliated sources such as this one don't really contribute towards GNG-notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG or PROF. No significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Publications pretty typical of someone at his level. Article written by COI [[2]] i.e. his main research collaborator. Cowlibob (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as specified I would have deleted in as A7, but since it;s come here, let;'s get the full decision. DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Getting first named author in a PLOS ONE paper shows the research he has been involved in isn't to be dismissed, however this alone is not notable enough in itself to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there are various practice in selecting author names: both by subject field, and idiosyncratic preference. My own advisor, for example, made sure that each of his doctoral graduates would have one paper as first author and one paper as sole author. In biochem, it is usual nowadays for the last author to be the significant one, but it varies, and by itself it proves little -- just as Drchriswilliams says. DGG ( talk ) 10:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Environment Action Network[edit]

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

This article is about an organisation tat lacks significant coverage that would establish notability. All but two of the sources are from the organisation's web site. The two non-primary sources do not establish notability as one is a guest post in the newspaper from the a member of the organisation, and the second is about that same person's plan to run for political office. My own searches fail to turn up reliable sources covering the organisation; just more mentions. Whpq (talk) 12:35, 23 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 16:41, 23 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 16:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is okay, although Keep also okay. (revised from simply Keep, by me, given later suggestion of a redirect target) The "news" Google search above yields numerous mentions. This 2011 Sydney Morning Herald article mentions that a review of the Australian Labor Party specifically called for the Labor Environment Action Network to be given a formal role within the party. Their role in the network is often cited for various persons who were "co-convenors" or had other roles in the network. Seems to me that Wikipedia readers would be served by having a short reference article, and that there is enough coverage for an article. --doncram 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Mentions are not significant coverage. And the specific article you linked to is in fact a copy of a speech given by Doug Cameron (politician), a member of the Australian Labour Party, so it does not represent independent coverage, and as an added bonus, it's also a single bullet point mention in the speech so even that fails to be significant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not imply it was independent of the Australian Labor Party; the mention was within a review of/by the Australian Labor Party, yes, which has to be internal to the party, and it was mentioned of course by a Labor Party person, yes. However, the network is not a branch of the party itself; per the wikipedia article it is affiliated, in that it is trying to change the Labor party. Note to be a member of the network you don't have to be a member of the Labor party. And the network is seeking more influence in the Labor party, sure, but it is not a part of it per se. It's certainly relevant to cover the fact that the Labor party is considering giving it more of a role. Whatever. Nonetheless, I don't mind a redirect terribly. --do ncr am 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks. Pax 02:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - concur that Australian Labor Party#Labor Networks is an obvious target. There isn't sufficient coverage to pass GNG/CORPDEPTH and certainly doesn't appear to be enough to sustain a stand-alone article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:24, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sauna culture in The Netherlands and Flanders[edit]

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

Notability has not been established, no reliable sources. AFAIK, there's no definite "Sauna culture" in Flanders and/or the Netherlands. There are sauna's, but that's not "sauna culture" Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Archetypal novel synthesis. Nominator has it right here, nothing put forth indicates that this sauna information represents a "sauna culture". And the geographic restrictions set by the article's title are peculiar even were that not the case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All but one of the references the article is based on are promotional texts or guidelines issued by the sauna industry. No reasoning is given why sauna use in the "Netherlands and Flanders" (why are they mentioned together?) should have its own article. Article creates the impression that there is different sauna use in other Western European countries, which is not elaborated on. Since this nomination the author of this article has created a new article with the same content but a slightly different title, see Sauna in the Netherlands and Flanders. Seems to me a bad faith action. Just removing the word "culture" does not remove the sense that the article implies a cultural aspect that stands out and needs to be mentioned, deserving an article. Which in my opinion it does not. --VanBuren (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (added 'delete' 12:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I've redirected the new article to this title - it looks like the original text including the spelling mistake I corrected in the one under discussion here. Peridon (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo. The Banner talk 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo notable "Sauna culture" in either Belgium or the Netherlands. There are sauna's but that's all. Notablility has not been established. Lotje (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the above post from a speedy request on this discussion page to a delete !vote. Peridon (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting essay, but we don't publish new research. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 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 17:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matouš Kohout[edit]

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

Speedy deletion of Repost was declined because article was not the same however the reasons behind the original AfD deletion are. There has been no significant change over the last six months. Subject does not meet WP:KICK having never even fought for a major organization. Also does not meet WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:33, 23 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 16:39, 23 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 16:39, 23 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 16:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He still hasn't done anything to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. He's won some minor titles, but nothing significant. The coverage is just routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nicholls[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet criteria for wp:politician. Haminoon (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely fails wp:politician and nothing else in the article suggests any other criterion for notability. Closest might be connection with the drama group, but I suspect that it would be the group that qualified for the article, not the individual that founded it. And the article is factually incorrect: he is not the the "Parliamentary candidate", since no election has been called and nominations have not closed! He is a prospective parliamentary candidate. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Being an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — if you cannot properly source that he already passed a Wikipedia inclusion rule for other things before he was named a candidate, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. But that hasn't been demonstrated here — we don't even have an article about RicNic itself, for one thing. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in May if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 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 Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. By "recorded with", he means that he made mixtapes using other artists' songs. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunit malcom[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. Only releases are mixtapes and digital downloads. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Could have tagged as A7, but there is somewhat of a credible claim to notability in the article (he apparently recorded with other, more notable, artists). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:45, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ekamra Tower[edit]

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

Not yet built. Not even sanctioned to any contractor. Is in the proposed phase. May be it is WP:TOOSOON. I doubt whether futuristic things warrants an article. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. It also fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Should I also make a note here that it is a non-notable event that comprises announcement of building a "tower"? No historic significance! No lasting effect! No national or international impact! -Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article uses a December 2013 to support the statement that the building "will be constructed". This September 2014 source states that there is some opposition against the construction of the building on the proposed location. Clearly, a WP:TOOSOON case.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:11, 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) - The Herald (here I am) 13:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrockstock[edit]

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

No notability Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. No RS found on a search. ƬheStrike Σagle 14:07, 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 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page looks not so great, but it got a lot of press. Earflaps (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. I've heard of Wired magazine. Here is another. Some other rag called USA TODAY. --Gaff (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the above, substantial coverage of this annual music festival for Harry Potter fans in The Ultimate Guide to the Harry Potter Fan, by Erin Anne Pyne. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 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 all five nominated articles. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact (band)[edit]

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

Cannot find any information about this band, and all the links in the article are dead. Laurent (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating their four albums:

Son of Solstice (Rupture Music, 2003)
Magic Spellcraft (Rupture Music, 2006)
Ruins (Rupture Music, 2008)
Failure (Self-produced, 2011)

They've all been created by the same two users, and are all based on primary sources only. None of it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Laurent (talk) 15:26, 15 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 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate deleting band pages since I feel they usually don't warrant it, but my google fu failed me on this one. Wish I spoke French, and could maybe look for better reviews that way. (hint anyone?) Earflaps (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I googled it in French language but didn't find anything about it either. The French Wikipedia article has the same problems with poor sources or dead links (I guess the English version is a translation of the French one). Laurent (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd close this as delete but taking care of the paperwork is too complicated when mobile, so I'll leave it for the next ~~schmuck~~ admin: delete. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luc Chikhani[edit]

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

No references, and seemingly no notability, only mentioned that he completed surgery on Trevor Rees-Jones, a low-importance bodyguard. Also has only two real links to it. Jjamesryan Jjamesryan (talk) 20:40, 8 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 21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF, or what would be the the equivalent for surgeons. BakerStMD T|C 02:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just needs improvements--87.242.202.85 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could use more information if available Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep ~~This seems to be the case of a one-event claim to fame, but nothing else. There is only one third-party source here (and there used to be none), the others are articles by the subject.~~ The BBC article and the book listed at #2 probably put this over the edge. The articles by him or about surgery that mention him aren't terribly helpful, unfortunately, and the text is still a bit thin. There were over 30 instances of his name in the Rees-Jones book, and I would encourage filling out the text in the article with more information from the sources listed. LaMona (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Update: LaMona (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it now has 4 third party sources. The fact that there used to be none shows that it has improved since being nominated, and should therefore be kept. (I apologize if I should have put Comment instead of keep at the beginning of this vote, not sure if my old one still counts!) --87.242.202.85 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once, please replace one of them with Comment. Vrac (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apologies again, I'm new here! --87.242.202.85 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Something of a one-trick pony in terms of notability but with the journal paper and interview I think he scrapes by WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 01:13, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woolamaloo Gazette[edit]

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

blog with flash-in-the-pan notability, only because someone got fired. Has faded into obscurity since then. The Dissident Aggressor 22:34, 8 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 22:56, 8 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 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Blogs#Employment. The blog's author, Joe Gordon, just might be notable if one took this incident together with his subsequent blogging on comics and science fiction for Forbidden Planet International, for which he certainly continues to get frequent mentions - if sufficient of these could be shown to be substantial and reliable enough, together with this incident and its coverage, for a standalone article on Gordon, I'd be inclined to convert this article into that one. Otherwise, the incident did have enough notability at the time, as an early (and precedent-setting) employment case involving blogging, that a couple of sentences at Blogs#Employment are certainly justified. PWilkinson (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ViableType, Inc. (agency)[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support and in-depth coverage. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Brody) reddogsix (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An admin deleted this same article under the name ViableType, Inc. yesterday, and the someone kept removing the speedy delete tag in that case as well. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a company, doing its job. Article currently not referenced. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 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) 10:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. T. R. Bus Station[edit]

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

Non-notable bus station. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFAIK, there is no specific notability criteria that says Bus stations aren't notable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, there is. It's called Wikipedia:General notability guideline. This article does not meet it. Vanjagenije (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Can always be recreated if this changes. Bus stations have no inherent notability.Charles (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad, Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminus has pages exists, why not for Guntur (a part of new capital of AP).--Vin09 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each place must be considered on its own sources.Charles (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By GNG, if we are looking for full-page coverage on bus-station in multiple newspapers, magazines, books, etc., then it is very unlikely to exist, not only for the bus station now up for deletion in this afd but also for almost all other bus stations in India. //If passing mentions in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources (that's what bus stations are supposed to receive) count -I can provide here tons of them, such as, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. I'm not sure why would a newspaper or magazine write about a Bus Station in 100 words (unless there something real bad happens). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: No, you are wrong. All articles are supposed to receive significant coverage in reliable sources (see: WP:GNG). This policy is for all articles. IF bus stations do not receive such a coverage, than we should not have articles about bus stations. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! Did I really say in my last comment on here, that GNG means "passing mention" or Buses are exempted from it? I think, I said "full-page coverage" that perhaps equate to "substantial coverage". Since I'm writing one more comment, I'll make an attempt to clarify previous one. Bus stations are unlikely to receive full-page (substantial) coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources unless something real bad happens to them. They are supposed to receive passing mentions and that is what this bus station has received. I didn't say that it makes them eligible for inclusion. I'm neutral to this moment. Having made more than 20,000 edits on project, I think, I'm well aware of GNG and other notability guidelines, however thank you very much for linking it to me. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & Charles, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Eve Online[edit]

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

Trivial listing of items only relevant to ingame play. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:IINFO --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:09, 23 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 06:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom - leave this to game wikis Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gbawden. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not covered in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 23 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) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is more suited to game wikis. There seems to be little encyclopedic that we can say about this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This info is relatively useless to an outsider, and there is very little published material to support its notability. Nosaj544 (talk) 16:25, 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 AOA (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 05:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Jimin[edit]

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

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

singers are not notable outside of his group, AOA (band). They article does not even claim he has ever done any activities outside of AOA. The article has no reliable sources, and I could find no RS about this person separate from AOA.please delete or redirect to they group.(Mrchurang (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to AOA (band). Subjects are not individually notable, but they are reasonably search terms to point to the band's article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band. All three are not independently notable. (Park Choa needs to be linked here so people know this AFD is for three articles.) --Random86 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AOA (band). No notability outside the group. Articles written in fankid-ese ("loveline", etc.) and future tense with no reliable sources. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bangtan Boys. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Tae-hyung (1995)[edit]

J-Hope and Kim Tae-hyung (1995) are not notable outside of his group, Bangtan Boys. All his work and filmography is inside of Bangtan Boys or not notable. Please redirect to his group or delete. (Mrchurang (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note – J-Hope is also nominated for deletion in this discussion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both are not independently notable. Anything important can be included on Bangtan Boys. --Random86 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Bangtan Boys. Both fail WP:GNG. No individual notability outside of their group. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:36, 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. Usersification may be requested at WP:REFUND. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of Feminization of Labor: in California[edit]

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

Appears to be Original Research. The original seconded PROD was removed by author. reddogsix (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, reads like an essay, references are weak (thus unlikely to support a re-write) LaMona (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Carolyngenesis should be proud of their thesis paper, but this isn't the place for it. I do hope they make sure to recycle the useable links/books and research on related topics. Earflaps (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because it isn't an appropriate WP article doesn't mean it isn't good content. Thanks for making that point. LaMona (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay. Userfy if the creator wants it, I suspect there may be material to be mined here for existing coverage of sweat shops or wage theft, etc. This is not an encyclopedic topic, which is not to say it is an unimportant matter. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 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 deleted by FreeRangeFrog per G4 and G11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 03:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Allie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't see that anything has changed since the last AfD, when decision was to delete. Still fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. Gaff (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete – per G4 (Recreation of material deleted via a deletion discussion) and G11 (Unambiguous advertising).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stjørdal. The content seems to already be merged into Stjørdal by User:Lwarrenwiki. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Stjørdal[edit]

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

It's meaningless to have an article about flags for small municipalities; the article talks about the coat anyway. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. No deletion-based policy has been presented by the nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stjørdal. A flag of a town of 21,000 people isn't going to be notable unless they stick a swastika on it or something. However, the information should definitely be incorporated elsewhere. I'd withdraw the nom and basically just stick the article's contents under Stjørdal#Coat of arms and flag, and also maybe let the creator know before they go through the whole list of flags of Norwegian subdivisions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I created the article proposed for deletion, and I have merged its content into Stjørdal, as suggested above. Having done that, I would now support changing Flag of Stjørdal into a redirect, pointing to Stjørdal#Coat of arms and flag. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 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 00:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per IgnorantArmies and per Lwarrenwiki's note above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this looks pretty much like a consensus. There were no supporters for the nom, and I've already edited Stjørdal per the merge proposal by IgnorantArmies. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:21, 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. List fails WP:LISTN, as it hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". While there may be some articles that discuss leaders for an individual NBA franchise, LISTN is not met with insufficient sources that discuss the grouping of leaders from all NBA franchises. While there are stats sites that can verify this particular list, a policy of Wikipedia is not WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This list of of stats leaders must meet LISTN from sources with prose, not pure stats listings, to alleviate NOTSTATSBOOK concerns. —Bagumba (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. Aspirex (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Franchise scoring leadership does get some independent coverage, but that's about the only stat that this is true for. We love our points. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-done article, and rebounds are an important statistic in basketball (obtaining possession of the ball is the most crucial activity in the game aside from scoring). By way of comparison, see the many list articles for football passing achievements. Pax 09:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebound (basketball) is notable, but nobody is arguing for that article's deletion. Instead, List of National Basketball Association career franchise rebounding leaders has been nominated here, and you have not demonstrated that WP:LISTN is met. WP:PRETTY and a wave at WP:OTHERSTUFF are generally considered arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (which WP:Pretty links to) includes just about everything and anything under the sun (and as such would be more honestly titled "Arguments that annoy me when they're made in support of a conclusion I don't want") - such as the "per noms" that the first two voters here were able to get away with without attracting the ire of circling raptors. Pax 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERNOM that you referred to says: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument ... an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." I'll leave it to the closer to determine if the nomination was comprehensive.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an random collection of statistics. The topic does not receive coverage on its own. - Bossanoven (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator Bagumba's rationale. Frankly, I wish other sports projects were more consistent in enforcing WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and WP:NLIST. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeflateGate[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Wp:NOTNEWS. The relevant information should be trimmed and moved to 2014 New England Patriots season. I tried myself but was reverted. -- Calidum 00:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into the 2014 season article. While this is a notable event right now, it isn't notable enough until the investigation is complete, someone is guilty and a punishment is handed down. Otherwise it is much ado about nothing in a game they would have won whether the balls were deflated or not. A standalone may be due in the future but it isn't sure how long it will take for this to reach an official closing. Should be summarized as well per nom, reads like a ticker now.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You admit the event is notable—just not "notable enough". First, the general notability criteria is: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...." I would need an explanation of how the article does not meet this criteria to buy your argument. Oh, and remember that notability is not temporary. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slow your roll. There is no need to respond to every single point you disagree with. -- Calidum 16:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are valid issues with NortyNort's !vote. How can something be notable, but not notable enough? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALLARGUMENTS tells that we should encourage full discussions. If an editor wants to respond to every point in the discussion, that's fine. That's why we are having the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I don't believe the situation is notable to warrant a stand-alone article at this point. By "...this is a notable event right now...", I was referring to the developing situation that is blanketing TV and radio in the U.S. This is good fodder for the news, who likes to speculate especially when the Super Bowl is a week away. We shouldn't be giving undue notability to a situation we can't predict the outcome of or cause behind. This is an encyclopedia. Notability may not be temporary but a subject has to reach the 'threshold' first. Also, as WP:GNG states, "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not,...". That's why were having this discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/redirect~~ per WP:NOTNEWS; if in the future it becomes sufficiently notable for its own article it can be spun back out. ansh 666 05:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree/explain: Please explain in detail how the event fails NOTNEWS. The article is not being used as a primary source, this is not a routine event within its own field, the article is not dedicated to a peripheral character—it is the central event, and the article is not a diary of miniscule minute-by-minute coverage. So I fail to see your reasoning. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say... ansh 666 05:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, as per WP:NOTNEWS. Esquivalience ^t 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per above: I disagree with your view per the same reason above. Please explain. -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Spygate has its own article, as did Bountygate, and DeflateGate is shaping up to be a similar sort of scandal with similar repercussions. At very least I'd wait until after the SB to see what (if any) punishments are handed down on the Patriots. If it is comparable to either Spygate or Bountygate that would strongly suggest a keep. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could always revisit the issue if anything major came out of this. But we shouldn't base decisions on what might happen in the future. It might also be important to note we don't have articles on the Ray Rice incident, salary cap penalties imposed on the Redskins/Cowboys a couple years ago, or Seattle being fined this offseason for CBA violations, something that is not even mentioned in any relevant articles actually. -- Calidum 07:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CRYSTAL involves speculation on future events. This event has already happened and the consequences are unfolding. Perhaps the event does not meet the notability threshold, but I fail to see the relevance of CRYSTAL. -- Veggies (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If stuff like the Ray Rice incident or the Cowboys/Redskins salary cap incidents warranted pages, then someone should create them. Just because one notable event doesn't have a page, it doesn't follow that a notable event that has a page is suddenly not notable.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2014 New England Patriots season per the above arguments. Just because something is commented upon by various news and sports organizations doesn't make it notable.-RHM22 (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: "Just because something is commented upon by various news and sports organizations doesn't make it notable" Actually, that's the very definition of notability. What more do you want? -- Veggies (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Take a look at WP:Notability#Notability is not temporary; specifically, the last sentence of that section. A brief burst of news coverage doesn't indicate notability. News coverage can be an indicator of notability, but it's not the deciding factor. Lots of celebrity-related issues get extensive coverage, for example, but very few are noteworthy enough to warrant their own article.-RHM22 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, what makes you think this is a "brief burst" of coverage when the end of the coverage (that which defines the brevity) has not come? Second, nominating or agreeing that an article should be deleted places the burden of proof on the nominee or supporter. I haven't read any argument here that I haven't disputed on its validity. -- Veggies (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As absurd as I think the whole "controversy" is, this topic is covered on all major sports news outlets and even on mainstream news outlets. Searching for Defaltegate shows hits on NBCSports.com, ABC News, SI, CNN, NY Post, USA Today, Time, CBS Sports. I think this easily passes WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should have it's own page, the NFL Spygate and Bountgate scandal do, and as do all other Gate scandals in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. To delete this or merge it into a wider topic would be against the standards set for other Gate scandals, including those in the NFL. Also, it IS a big news story in the USA, and it's also news in the UK as well, where there's very little NFL news coverage [21] Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect too soon. It may well go beyond current news, but we're not there yet. Open to it being created in the future. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What exactly (policy-wise) do you cite to oppose the article's stand-alone existence? Because I'm not sure how something can be "too soon" after it's happened. -- Veggies (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called WP:TOOSOON but it generally speaks to pre-coverage of future events. This has already happened. so I don't see how that applies. As to the point about "have we passed the point where it is notable" -- that's the purpose of this discussion. To just say "it's not here yet" is not really an argument. Please, why is it not "there" yet? (you may be right, but I can't agree with just a statement without reasoning).--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the original redirects that previously pointed to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix#Sports, fully expecting this would become an article in the near future after more press coverage had become available. It's clear this is a serious, major news item. The question of it passing WP:NOTNEWS seems clear to me; that guideline notes we consider "the enduring notability of ... events". There's little question this will have enduring notability; witness Spygate. Witness the bounty scandal. Most importantly, witness the >5 million hits for "deflategate" in Google News [22]. This story is absolutely huge, not a minor hiccough in the 2014-15 NFL season. It doesn't matter what deflategate becomes or doesn't become in the future at this point. It doesn't mater what the penalties may or may not be. It is huge now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a huge issue and is superseding any and all discussion about the actual game that is going to be played. (Seriously, has anyone seen or heard any analysis about the game? They are going to play the game, right?). I suppose this could wind up blowing over, but there is no reason to assume it will, considering that the nonstop coverage continues to not stop. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far surpasses the general notability guideline. The WP:NOTNEWS issue is irrelevant in this case: yes it is a current event, a recent event, but it is also a notable event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BALLGHAZI. LOL. OK, the issue deserves coverage somewhere. If this isn't kept, it should be maintained as a redirect.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per above. We don't know if this is just rumours or not. In any case, it's a borderline WP:CRYSTAL problem given the lack of definitive proof of something actually happening. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't a temporary thing that will go away and be forgotten in a few days, any more than Spygate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep things like bounty-gate are talked about and referenced to forever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, but this passes as noatable, it's already being talked about more than the super bowl (the expected topic of conversation at this time of year), it involves a team that has already been involved in various other "gate" scandals, and as a coverup has become glaringly obvious, this will have major repercussions in the league. My feeling is that most people voting delete are not fans of American Football and simply don't realize just how big this is. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The volume of news coverage makes it clearly notable. One off-beat example: Deflategate is a significant topic of discussion at the website of National Review, a magazine about American politics -- not a sports magazine or a general news magazine. [23] — Lawrence King ^(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage is frankly a little over-inflated, and should probably have a pin stuck in it, the google hits have ballooned, stretched and distended from 5 million to 6 million hits since the afd was puffed open, and this thing is still blowing up. Ballghazi has become one of the most overblown football controversies in a long while, and there is ample coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Don't let the air out of this one. Cbl62 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nice I count 7 puns in your 3 short sentences... -War wizard90 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notability is not temporary" is being turned on its head. It actually says once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. There can be no question that the coverage of this event has been signficant. Also, it isn't WP trying to do journalism; it's summary and explanation of what reliable news sources say, same as any other current event. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This event is equivalent in propensity to 2007 National Football League videotaping controversy, and is already covered in multiple reliable sources. If this article is not kept, it should, at a minimum, be merged into 2014 New England Patriots season. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Patriots may have a tendency to cheat but this is not on the same level as SpyGate right now. Just a lot of speculation with few facts.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite notable, and not a mere side trip on the 2014 season; on Boston sports-talk radio, it is crowding out all other topics. I bet it's the main angle on the Super Bowl nationwide in the two-week build-up to the event, including discussion of whether the league wants the controversy, wants it now, and is artificially prolonging it. I came to WP (going straight to the redirect at "Deflate-gate") to see if there were angles I had missed; the assertion that D'Qwell Jackson did not notice anything strange about the ball he intercepted was news to me. I plan to return to the article to read a summary of emerging forensic details. Needs an unbiased mention of predisposition against Belichick based on the Spygate transgression. Echoing Lawrence King above, it is not just being discussed outside sports media, it is being set against current events in Arabia by Limbaugh and Levin to debate U.S. values and engagement. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to mention, over the last 4 days this page has received an average of 4,087 page views per day! -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The amount of coverage the scandal is getting justifies an article. Several unusual things happened, which is why journalists are flocking to it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The idea this should be deleted is farcical on its face. If you want to merge it, then use the merge tag. Which would also get turned down, but isn't absurd. 66.87.67.78 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article gives accurate, properly sourced information about an event, and a significant number of visitors have been reading the article to learn this information, but Wikipedia's policy still wanted the article deleted (which I doubt), then the policy, not the article, would be the problem. Tbtkorg (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. For those who are supporting deletion and have quoted WP:CRYSTAL, it works both ways: We currently do not know whether in the future this actually erupts into a real scandal (thus historically significant), or it is merely a false positive. It is only after it is finally resolves that can we have a more in-depth discussion on whether it was historically significant or just WP:NOTNEWS. Deleting it now and then finding out later that it was actually significant is not productive. Better to err on keeping it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep - A number of editors above are relying on the volume of significant coverage in the last week to establish the notability of this purported "scandal"; that analysis is only partially correct. Per WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, not only must a subject event receive significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, but news events must also establish their enduring notability; that does not typically happen in the space of a week. Specifically, WP:NOTNEWS states in relevant part:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

Furthermore, WP:EVENT also states several criteria to consider in evaluating the notability of a recent news event, specifically:

1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.

2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).

3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.

4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

Having set forth the correct standards to evaluate the notability and suitability of this event for inclusion as a stand-alone article, I am now going to hedge, and say that I believe, but I cannot say with 100% certainty, that Inflategate will have "enduring notability". Given the volume of significant coverage to date, the high-profile nature of the NFL, the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots, and quarterback Tom Brady, I believe that this "scandal" will have significant legs to establish its enduring notability per the applicable criteria. If Brady and the Patriots are exonerated, and no one is talking about this event in 90 days, we may revisit this issue via a 2nd AfD and/or a possible merge at that time. In the mean time, let's source the article properly with mainstream reliable source footnotes per WP:V and WP:RS, try to maintain a neutral point of view and encyclopedic tone per WP:NPOV, and not clutter the article with extraneous factoids and trivia per WP:UNDUE. This topic can be properly treated in about 500 words of straightforward, factually stated main body text; let's not create text that restates redundant coverage of the NFL, Super Bowl, AFC playoffs, New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, and the history of prior alleged cheating scandals in the NFL and pro sports generally. Focus. Please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a criteria, but I note if you click on "what links here" you already get a fairly length list for the DeflateGate article. I appreciate a lot of those are because it already appears within Template:New England Patriots, but that in itself is at least a little telling. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one article, List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, links here outside the template as of now. Epic Genius (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional redirect to 2014–15_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship_Game:_New_England_Patriots_45.2C_Indianapolis_Colts_7; I agree with Dirtlawyer1 on basically all points. Whether this survives as an article really depends on the outcome. I think if the Patriots are found to have systematically and intentionally underinflated balls, then this article will have sufficient content for a stand-alone article; but if they escape sanction, or are sanctioned but not found to have underinflated balls deliberately, then the whole thing can probably best be described in a single paragraph. Most of this article is padding anyway, including a thorough recap of the game which is already and more appropriately covered in the location to which I propose a redirect. Aspirex (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect information related to rules and alleged rule violation into Football (ball)#American and Canadian football --Thoken (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. This is covered in numerous reliable sources. While there have been multiple underinflated balls used in football games over the years, this one is quite significantly covered. It may be deleted later if this event has no significant impact in the future, though, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Epic Genius (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be an overwhelming majority here to keep the article. Can we take the tag off the article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to snowball keep this and close the debate. But, in this case I think waiting the full seven days would be quite helpful, as it would definitely quiet any debate on the AfD being properly run, etc. Let it run its course. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a democracy.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care either way, but this thing happens all the time here. Some minor event is blown out of proportion by the media. Someone creates a Wikipedia article for it, and it's quickly put up for deletion and gets some initial delete votes. But as the coverage ramps up, everyone appears and votes keep, after all, it may be insignificant and the article may be destined to be no more than an over-detailed stub, but look at all of the coverage! The article is kept, and because it overwhelmingly survived an afd it is guaranteed a long life. Maybe Wikipedia needs to adopt a one month policy for afds on current events, then we can see where it stands. I can guarantee you that in a month (or, more accurately, once the SuperBowl is over) this event will mostly be forgotten and will seem a lot less major. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response then it can be re-nominated for deletion at that time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you ever tried nominating something for deletion within a year of an afd? If someone did put it up in a month, it would be crowded with "Speedy keep. There was an afd last month" comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think great care needs to be taken here. It could come down to physics and not foul-play which would counter-act the significance and weight of this 'gate'. Yes, I know that professor is probably a Patriots fan... --NortyNort (Holla) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't believe that "Consensus will be to keep it so we should delete it" is a valid reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did I say that? No. You missed my point entirely, so here it is in simple terms: There should be a rule preventing afds of an article on a current event within a month of it happening. Whoever nominated this should have known it would be kept because it's a current event getting headline coverage so it SEEMS more important than it is. In a month, we would have a good feel for the actual notability of the event and could make an objective decision as to whether the article can stand on its own or should be merged elsewhere (personally, I think an article for the game itself would make more sense, but I don't care either way). But because this afd happened, we can't do that. Any afd for the next while will end in a snowball keep. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, that's what you said. FYI, articles do get deleted the second or third time through AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think your proposal is a good idea on its face, but then we'd encounter problems when people create a nonsense article about an obviously minor event (but maybe not obvious enough for speedy delete), but no one could nominate it for deletion for a month. It would have the opposite effect in that case.-RHM22 (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much as I hate this story and feel like it's getting way too much attention (and my gut feeling the NFL's not actually going to do anything), this story has been getting a lot of coverage and it is influencing how people feel about the New England Patriots organization as a whole. I think this incident will be well remembered.Infinity Project (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or maybe, at least, merge with a redirect. In any case, I think it's useful to have a place where people can go to to find out "what the heck is this" about events creating media hoopla. The very fact that it's caused a media hoopla seems to indicate some sort of historical value. I appreciate the fact that there's an article here, so that there's somewhere I can go to that's not a news site and isn't written as if I already know what the event is all about, and require me to dig through dozens of past media articles and little snippety updates to find out what the heck they are talking about. This wiki article is serving an important encyclopedic purpose by simply being a reference that one can look to to get a better overview of a topic that's causing a cultural stir, no matter how inane it may be. AaronW from ABQ (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Love it or hate it, this is a notable event in NFL history and will be discussed for years to come. It's not hurting anything to have an article on it. AtlasBurden (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's too soon (or Wait and See) - In my opinion it's too soon to judge whether this is only a temporary news story that'll fade with time or whether this will become a story with a lasting effect. Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per AaronW from ABQ, I actually Googled this term to find out what it meant, and the article told me exactly what I wanted to know. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of sources on this and there are only more coming out all the time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is it's own topic in the new, we should not change that. MicroPaLeo (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's too early to tell how large DeflateGate will actually become. It only happened about a week ago, and the media tends to over-exaggerate on minor issues—a lot. As of now, it's a relatively minor issue that only has such hype due to the Super Bowl only being, at the time this began, two weeks away. Here's what I'm thinking: if DeflateGate is still being discussed about a week or two after the Super Bowl, then the article can stay. If DeflateGate goes away shortly after the Super Bowl, then the article may be deleted. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 21:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has achieved enough notoriety to warrant its own article. Jeffrey Henning (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is kept (looking likely), then it should probably be renamed. The BountyGate article is named New Orleans Saints bounty scandal and SpyGate article is named 2007 New England Patriots videotaping controversy. For consistency we probably should use something dull sounding like 2015 New England Patriots deflated footballs controversy. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legis: A move request has already been brought up, but has not closed. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 04:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shortly: I understand the main argument for deletion is that this event is not noteworthy. I'll just mention one statistic: Currently (Jan 27, 2015, 00:27 EST), a Google search for "Deflategate" yields about 17,400,000 results. Ynagar (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to having enough notability for its own subject, regardless of how true it is, or how much anyone agrees with it needing this much coverage (I'm one if those people, but I can't let that affect an encyclopedia.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's become notable as a current event. It's not unreasonable to think that people would come to this page in order to understand the big picture rather than go through several different news articles. While I don't think that DeflateGate should be the name of the article, I do think that there are enough independent sources and information that it can stand on its own without being merged or turned into a redirect. Harland Q Pitt 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is more than a single news story; it's an ongoing controversy that may have significant repercussions beyond the New England Patriots 2014 season. I came to this article because I wanted background that news stories (still appearing over a week after the game) no longer provide. Bennetto (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. Also, readers unfamiliar with the controversy may stumble upon the word "DeflateGate" in the general media and come to WP to find answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkie82 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Keep. Notable, immense coverage across the nation/world, will sadly be brought up often whenever this championship is discussed later, or Brady, or Wilson, or etc.... Buggie111 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it potentially affected the match, it has potential repercussions for Belichick, Brady and the Patriots, and because even the BBC has devoted nine stories to it (as of posting this) and that is about half as many stories as the BBC do on the NFL in a whole year. —Gyaro –Maguus— 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close — There's been a blizzard of media attention toward this (I.e, a new article published every few hours). Whatever the NFL decides, it is likely to be controversial for a long time, so it will most likely have lasting notability. Since the overwhelming consensus here is obviously to keep the article, IMHO it may be advisable for an admin to close this early. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 03:11, 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Keynesian Economics[edit]

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

Non-notable relatively new journal, article creation premature. Only index listed is RePEc, which strives to include all publications in economics.Note that the "impact factor" mentioned in the article is calculated by RePEc, not the usual Thomson Reuters IF. Article dePRODded and created by COI editor. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:07, 7 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 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in reliable sources at this point is sparse and superficial, and don't significantly discuss the journal itself. Perhaps down the road. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ – Most hits in Google seem to be from economics blogs. They are serious blogs, but still blogs. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Being easily influenced, I am changing my !vote per Randykitty. My impression of the Google hits remains the same, but academic journals is one area where we have well defined and well functioning standards. We should follow them. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It turns out that the journal is included in the Social Sciences Citation Index and Current Contents. Given its age (and, frankly, the rather promotional way in which the article was written) I thought it practically impossible that this would be the case and did not check Thomson Reuters. My bad... I was wrong. I have changed my !vote to "keep", but given that there are two delete !votes, I cannot at this point withdraw the nom. I have cleaned up the article to reflect the foregoing and to remove the promotional stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having the tables of contents mechanically distributed by third parties with a financial interest does not count as in-depth coverage in a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator has withdrawn, and has !voted to keep in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use common sense to improve the encyclopedia). This is a double-blind juried academic journal — the pillar of so-called "reliable sources" at Wikipedia. As content is apt to be cited to this and similar sources in our footnotes, we need to provide our readers with as much detail as possible on the nature of the journals being cited. Therefore, the needs of our readers should trump any ephemeral notability concerns related to this journal's comparative newness, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is absolutely no need for IAR (which all too often is invoked to keep non-notable stuff). There are many peer-reviewed and double peer-reviewed academic journals that never should get an article (unless there are sources because of how bad those journals are). As I pointed out in my above "keep" !vote, the journal meets NJournals without any problem. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I hold Keynesian economists in roughly the same estimation as Sigourney Weaver's attitude concerning alien eggs, I must vote Keep. Pax 09:44, 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 speedy delete (G5 (creation by banned user)) by Ponyo (talk · contribs)

Patrick O'Connor (TV producer)[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The article was created based on the mistaken belief that O'Connor would be producing an upcoming Disney Channel TV series. That belief was based on a hoax perpetrated on Wikia.com. Since no reliable sources exist to verify that series, we are left with a person whose sole IMDB credit is 1 episode of Phineas and Ferb. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this page should not be deleted because because Patrick O'Connor is a real TV producer. Itchy and Scratchy fan (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Itch and Scratchy fan: What has he produced? His IMDB profile lists him as a writer and story board artist on a single episode of Phineas and Ferb. Where is the evidence of significant coverage needed for this person to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found sources for him at his website. Itchy and Scratchy fan (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he may become a television producer, that role appears to be in his future. When that time comes, he may become notable, although producing on television does not automatically confer notability. I also wonder if we've got the right Patrick O'Connor in our sights. There is a Patrick O'Connor who is a cartoonist, but I see nothing that links him to television production. With such a common name, it's hard to know what we've got here. LaMona (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on the art work on Patrick O'Connor the cartoonist's home page (which includes some P&F themed art) I am guessing that the cartoonist and the P&F storyboard artist are one and the same. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what that means? Itchy and Scratchy fan (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I've deleted the account under WP:CSD#G5 criteria as Itchy and Scratchy fan is a Confirmed sock of KuhnstylePro.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:39, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). No consensus for a particular action has emerged in the discussion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukasz Tracz[edit]

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

Originally prodded by me with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement." Deprodded ~~by creator~~ with the following rationale: [24]. I don't think that the new sources, however, are sufficient to demontrate notability. This seems (like the other now redirected entries) like a promo/vanity bio of a non-notable entrepreneur that at best should be redirected to his company. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:54, 8 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 22:09, 8 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 22:09, 8 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 22:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I'm not the page's creator. Earflaps (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Life in Color. Non-notable outside the context of the company which he has founded. kashmiri ^TALK 20:50, 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 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Committee_Entertainment which lists him, his brother Patryk Tracz and the other founder of the company, with plenty of room for any added information from this article. LaMona (talk) 03:03, 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 no consensus. A lack of adequate participation prevents this from being closed with a keep result. The discussion is leaning keep, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual band[edit]

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

This is an interesting piece but I am not seeing enough sources to make it suitable. The article is all but unsourced and the Internet isn't helping. Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively "animated musical groups" with some sources could work?Cptnono (talk) 07:57, 8 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 22:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are a couple sources in the article, and the fact that Guinness has a category for it shows that it's at least a thing. It's a hard term to Google though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll admit that it's difficult to find articles that discuss the topic without going in-depth into the history of Gorillaz. However, I did find a few sources that satisfied me: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. This phrase does seem very heavily associated with Gorillaz, as expected, but it does get used to describe other bands. There's a little bit of discussion about the topic itself in those links, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 20 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 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Russians in Sweden. A short discussion, but all three participants have essentially agreed to this merge. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian National Association[edit]

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

Fails the guidelines for notability of organisations. It has one reliable source mentioning one event, a show about Russian brides in Sweden. Otherwise, only ~~non-reliable sources are cited:~~ The organization (which is reliable about itself, but which does not establish notability), and some miscellaneous mentions ~~in non-reliable sources~~. It was named when its chairperson was invited to contribute to a reliable-source (Swedish Radio)'s discussion of Putin's election and allegations of electoral fraud, but such a trivial mention does not establish notability. (This article was listed in the See also section of Donbass Association Malmö, which is also under discussion for deletion.) is a 18:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Updated with strike-throughs. is a 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cited sources in Voice of Russia, state radio, and state tv + this article about them and their exhibition in Dala-Demokraten + this article in The Local + this mention in Dagens Nyheter + this additional mention in Voice of Russia + this mention in Svenska Dagbladet, this article in Dagbladet (sv)... I could probably find more if I looked harder. I find that "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is fulfilled. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dala Demokraten link covers the Russian Bride program, one event that does not establish the notability of an organization; it ends with boilerplate text that likely is copied directly from a news release; it is a minor newspaper. In English, The Local's long article discusses Russians in Sweden and Swedish views of Russia; again the head of the association is quoted for her views, not speaking on behalf of the organization. As I wrote above, it is an organization with one notable event (Russian bride); its head is sometimes asked for comments about being Russian in Sweden. With the exception of The Russsian Bride, any activities of the organization are ignored. Please give one reliable source discussing an organizational activity besides The Russian Bride. is a 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to put such effort into this. I have a lot of other things to do. Just get it all over with. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Russians in Sweden. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggested merger is a very good suggestion. The leader is usually asked to comment about the experiences of Russians in Sweden, rather than on any activity of the organization (apart from the Russian Brides showings). If reliable sources cover other activities and an editor writes more, a self-standing article might be viable in the future. is a 08:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Stamboliyski (talk) 20:48, 16 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 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the discussion. The discussants agreed on a merger. is a 00:17, 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. only (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pearlman's Jewelers[edit]

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

Non notable; almost all of the refs are either from its website or about a product it sells. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The jckonline ref seems ok. I can't assess the paywalled one. Maybe a merge to D.NEA, or merge that here. Don't consider this as a keep vote, though. Voting sucks, anyway. —Cryptic 17:39, 15 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 10:11, 16 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 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When they open a second store maybe we can reconsider. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 17:02, 16 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 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to see this company as notable - everything here is simply business as usual. Note that there is a companion article D.NEA which interlinks with this one and has even fewer reliable sources. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 09:56, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan-ul-Faqr Monthly Magazine[edit]

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

Promotional article coming from the now-deleted Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd.; this Urdu-language periodical fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERIODICAL for lack of any third-party sources. Google's only results except Wikipedia is the company's blog and facebook pages. kashmiri ^TALK 10:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed— there seem to be no independent online sources in Urdu or English. I declined the speedy delete and removed a few peacock terms, as it could be cleaned up easily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the same premises for which Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sultan-ul-Faqr Publications Regd., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tehreek Dawat-e-Faqr and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faqr-e-Iqbal were deleted. This article is just another one of the trove of promotional pieces created by the same group of one-topic sockpuppets about a non-notable publication house and all its publications. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 20 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 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not a web host. Even if it were "available all over" (no sources cited), it's not notable. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 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) 05:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kawsar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't identify the significance Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even in Bengali, two links to an online newspaper mentioning who the editor of this publication is do not indicate any notability at all. This isn't a language barrier issue; the publication is not notable, full stop. It's a clear fail of WP:GNG and if it can't even pass that, then naturally it fails other even more specific notability criteria for periodicals. The only reason the first AfD ended with no consensus was due to there being next to no community feedback at all. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 20 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 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it lacks even an allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Contributions of Andhrites to Naizam[edit]

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

per WP:SOAPBOX. Main purpose of this list is to make a political point. This article previously created and deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of Andhra Contributions to Nizam-Telangana Region. User blanked the page, after I nominated it at AfD. User:Vigyani 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - especially because most of the people listed did not even belong to the so-called "Naizam" state. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable contributions would have a place in the individual persons' articles. There are no sources to support the notability of the intersection ("Andhrites to Naizam" rather than other peoples). 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:57, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timeslaughter[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced; attempting to search for references using Google seems to yield no notable results. I found a bunch of IGN/G4TV-type "hub" pages with no articles about the game on those respective websites, and mentions of the game on a few tiny blogs and forums. The only actual mention of the game in any semi-noteworthy source was this AskMen article. Basically, the game appears to be non-notable, and attempts to find reliable sources mentioning the game have failed. V2Blast (talk) 06:22, 15 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) 16:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - nothing in the way of coverage in reliable sources that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 21:00, 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 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is complex because this is only one of a half dozen or so games that link to Bloodlust. None have much content, most have no references. The original Bloodlust site is gone (as of early 2014) but I just added a link to the wayback machine entry. There is a page for Bloodlust on the gaming wiki, so the entire history is not lost. It would be good to copy what is here to that wiki before deletion (which I think is the right choice, thus delete). LaMona (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user can request Wikipedia:Userfication and have the content moved to his or her personal pages after the afd concludes. This may be an option if you are interested in moving the content to a different wiki.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The askmen ref mentioned above is brief coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any further significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 08:36, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanic[edit]

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

Is he notable enough? No sources Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 8 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 22:29, 8 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 22:29, 8 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 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanic is a renowned disc jockey from Canada and has over millions of hits, per video. He is arguably one of the most popular, if not the most popular DJ to have emerged via SoundCloud and YouTube. To delete this page would be like deleting Obama's page... if he was a disc jockey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiffmeister420 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Yiffmeister420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd argue that Vanic is notable enough. I'm not sure exactly what sources you need to verify that, but his SoundCloud, Facebook and Twitter should be References if they aren't already. They amass over 100,000 individual likes and his SoundCloud and YouTube videos amass over 5 million views. In addition, he has already started playing in some of Canada's headlining festivals and electronic music venues and events. The references can be added to verify this, and I believe (and I may be wrong) but they were in a previous version of the wiki post. — NoahWeidner (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Noahweidner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Number of followers on social media is irrelevant as it relates to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I see no significant coverage about this DJ in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish inclusion. - Whpq (talk) 21:03, 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 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article says he only became "prominent" last year, and that's probably why he does not meet the notability criteria at this time. The article contains no Reliable Sources. In a search, the closest thing I found to a Reliable Source was a passing mention at TechCrunch[30]. Maybe in a year or two he will have gained the notability we need, but for now, no. --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chirp's Flight Appearance[edit]

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

Pure fan trivia regarding a character on Peep and the Big Wide World. Extremely narrow scope per WP:SALAT, and an example of what Wikipedia is not. The proper place for this list, and anything like it, is Peep and the Big Wide World Wiki. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 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 00:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pax 09:58, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Tour (R5)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:NCONCERT TOUR, as there isn't a single independent reliable source, much less the multiples required. While R5 is notable, that does not make each of their tours notable, or indeed any of them. This has one fan source (not reliable by Wikipedia standards), one music club's article about the group they were presenting, and a dead link to Clevver TV, which was probably a rehashing of their record label's press release about the EP and tour. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:05, 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 00:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish College of Engineering and Technology (Rahim Yar Khan)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's b-a-ack under a slightly different name again, after being deleted twice in the last month, on Dec. 18, and Jan. 3.

IMO the editors in the article history should be checked as socks or part of a nest of users attempting to promote "private" madrassas as legitimate institutions of higher learning (see opened discussion). Pax 03:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:49, 7 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 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we ignore the "differing" titles and WP:ADHOM arguments and simply concentrate on the topic of the institution itself? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 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 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG .. for now. Seem to indicate notability with a google search.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's notable? Asserting notability and showing it are two different things; and "seem" is a qualifier indicating less-than-full confidence in the assertion. Pax 10:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article has been deleted twice already under slightly different names. The last one had a website with a phony CGI building, leading me to wonder if the place actually existed. The latest incarnation of the article links to a more polished-looking website, but there's still a lot of fishiness still going on (e.g., most site pictures are of what seems to be a festival, and of people pleased to be handing each other trophies or posing for a group photo - rather than pictures of academic activities. Why does the building have a giant sign on top emblazoned with the purported school's English name when Punjabi is the primary local language? Why isn't the website in Punjabi? It doesn't even have an option to read the site in Punjabi. Etc). Given the track record of this article under its various names, I think we should seek independent confirmation this place actually exists. Pax 10:32, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation Lewis[edit]

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

I propose that this article be deleted. There is already a summary available at List of Lewis episodes. No other Lewis episode merits its own article - this page was created with the best intentions but is not named properly, not linked properly nor is it categorised. I believe that it is best deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:59, 7 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 18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 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 00:04, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Irons[edit]

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

A lady who created a popular Facebook page. By this definition a bunch of my mates are notable for their own articles. The only claim to notability is the Australian Story documentary, and I don't think that's sufficient on its own. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will note, that is not her only claim to notability. She is also an actress in a popular web series, on the council of a Tasmania State Government agency, Australia Day Ambassador, Young Australian of the Year finalist, Resilient Australia Award winner, and covered in the many news articles linked. JT_dale^Talk~ 08:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These look good on a resume, but I don't think any of them, or all of them combined, amount to notability. An article on someone who had done one of these things would get nominated for deletion in a heartbeat. I don't think it makes a huge difference to someone's notability if they've done five of them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, one of these things would mean nothing, but multiple things do pile up. JT_dale^Talk~

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:37, 7 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 09:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known in a number of different areas - all well referenced. Wikipedia is not paper. -- Chuq (talk) 00:17, 19 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 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - terrible stub, but she appears to be famous down under for her advocacy. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please explain what you mean by famous, famous does not mean necessarily notable on WP. LibStar (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete if she was actually young Australian of the year for her state she would pass but the other awards are minor. but I don't believe the totality of coverage meets WP:BIO. And needs multiple roles to meet WP:NACTOR LibStar (talk) 14:58, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wellcentive[edit]

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

references are notices & not substantial. Fastest growing" usually indicate "not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of available sources (see here) to establish notability per WP:CORP. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to a page of Google returns consisting entirely of press-releases and in-passing mentions. The best in-article refs are financial- or medical-press pieces in the vein of "X company hired Y person", that read like press-releases given a little word-shuffling. Pax 10:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:47, 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 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. Pax 10:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP for lack of independent reliable sourcing. The references in the article are press-release-based items in very minor publications - the totally routine type of announcement that "company x hired so-and-so" or "company x raised y million dollars". It may be that the company will gain coverage later; usually it's only very new companies that issue a press release every time they attract some funding. But for now, the coverage needed for an article isn't there. --MelanieN (talk) 05:41, 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 delete. The article on Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat was never properly discussed, it needs to be nominated if someone wants to delete it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Sharfuddin Wilayat[edit]

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

This just makes no sense to me. It looks like a place but reads like a person? The refs don't seem to refer to the article name. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:38, 7 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 09:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if references are found demonstrating he was a notable Sufi teacher or that his shrine is notable, this should probably be merged with Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat, which appears to have its own issues. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wilayat means province, but it also means authority which can be a person I just learned. Yup, merge it per the above comment. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: I'm not entirely sure, but I think the article for the proposed merge is about a different guy who is Iraqi and this one seems to be a Pakistani, just with a similar name. This is a weird case because there is some information that seems to be notable but it isn't relevant to the subject. It would almost seem more appropriate to merge it to something about Taliban attacks. Is there a way to solicit more community input on this? I don't even know how to approach it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I sent for delete discussion when reviewing new articles - can't figure it out. Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:47, 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 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and nom may wish to bundle Sharfuddin Shah Wilayat into this AfD. (There's an apparent project afoot to create an article on every name mentioned in every Sufi publication. It'd be like every parish priest getting one.) Pax 11:09, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishikant Sadaphule[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/director. Notability not supported by references, minor awards, lots of name droppings not much more. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:57, 7 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 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable secondary sources independent of the subject (the two sources in the article are by the actor itself). Doing some searches, there are almost no reliable sources reporting on the subject. Esquivalience ^t 05:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Okay, created by a SPA, there are some extra-ordinary claims made in the article that suggest subject being a notable person but on the ground level, we do not see any such sources and all those claims fail Wikipedia's core content policies such as WP:Verifiability. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:FILMMAKER. They are said to "produce" an award winning film, but that really is not a valid criteria. I think, creator has called them a director for making advertisement films. However, Filmfare nomination for the music of film Aboli, if sourced to a reliable source may get them on board, -per WP:MUSICBIO #8 and if it was true, they were supposed to meet the GNG standard too (you know, Indian media?). Again, there are no reliable sources to verify extra-ordinary claims made in the article and subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I do not know their local Marathi language, therefore unable to help if there any such sources exists (have tried for English and Hindi languages, found none). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:23, 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 per WP:SK#1. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Surendranath[edit]

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

Article seems to be a biography of a potentially non-notable living person? Certainly no reliable sources provided. GoddersUK (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Subject may meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline -for they have been written about in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources such as, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. There might be many more that I'm unable to find at this moment, more prominently Hindi and other languages sources. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note here that subject may meet WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3 and #4 for their work Mile Sur Mera Tumhara. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:39, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Anupmehra seems to have demonstrated that this person is notable so I'd have no problem with the article remaining (sorry, I'm unsure whether it's appropriate for me, as the person who nominated the page, to drop a bold "keep" here or not). GoddersUK (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoddersUK: -You may just say "nomination withdraw" in bold and someone patrolling discussions and will /hopefully/ close it as keep. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per my above comment. (Thanks Anupmehra)GoddersUK (talk) 08:01, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To The Wind[edit]

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

Non notable band. I've turned down a CSD because I can find the band namechecked in two reasonable sources here and here, and Tokyogirl79 has attempted to engage the article's creator. I don't think it will harm things to do it "by the book". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:45, 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 00:02, 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) 11:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer 67[edit]

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

I'm not very knowledgeable about music but this article seems to fail WP:NMUSIC and, even if kept, needs a fundamental rewrite. Sitush (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find anything useful other than collaborative websites, blogs and mere mentions. I got a couple of minor sources, so minor that I'd say the band would hardly pass WP:NBAND. At best it could be redirected to Paulo Schroeber, though it does not appear to be the case since he is apparently not the leader. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 12:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:43, 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 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary sources at best. Fylbecatulous talk 01:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources to support notability. The fact that there isn't even an article for the band on the Portuguese project is telling as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LatINNA (Inna Album)[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This article contains a nucleus of true facts about some songs that were released as singles but these are not about the album. The rest of the article is conjecture about what the album might contain and when it might be released. All of the songs were released independently, not as singles from an album. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find sources confirming the content of the article. At present there are none. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:42, 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 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just not enough independent coverage on this album at this time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. Erick (talk) 18:56, 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, based on the improvements that have been made. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venkatesh mandir nepal[edit]

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

Unambiguous essay. Google results are affiliated websites and travel websites. Mr. Guye (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the Hindu temple may or may not be notable, the current text appears to be a copyright violation from [41]. Stubbed down for now. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:00, 7 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 19:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 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 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub, the Kathmandu Star is a RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added 1 more reference. Delibzr (talk) 06:35, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A la luz del Ángel[edit]

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

This telenovela was announced since 2012, and yet premieres and take two years, since he said he would be released the TV, but not yet premiered, nor have started the recordings. McVeigh / talk 18:04, 7 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 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if they ever do end up making it, we can create the article then. Vrac (talk) 02:36, 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 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vrac. – Margin1522 (talk) 11:53, 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.