Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 5

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Kes Tokyo (musician)

Kes Tokyo (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no reliable sources to prove the notability of this subject. All the sources cited in the article are either self-published or just mention him in passing. Google News search returns no hits [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhbent/Archive Crow^Caw 00:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete immediately per WP:EVASION and close this AfD. SeeWikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhbent/Archive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The creator is either a sock of User:Mhbent or part of his circle and has registered an account to post this article originally created by Mhbent. Much of the content is identical. That means it should be speedily deleted per G5. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. After about three hours of reading sources - and reading the group itself, which I hadn't seen before, I've been trying to work out whether this Facebook group is indeed notable. That there are 30,000 members doesn't confer notability in itself (there are much larger groups), and it's not the first (or only) group which has existed to point out unusual Wikipedia articles. So I turned to the sources themselves: they're interesting, but they're not really convincing as "non-trivial" sources. A fair few of them read as re-prints of press releases, interviews, or advertising for the group, and are written by the group's members. Others are from student newspapers, although the only one that I really found acceptable is from a member of the group - which makes the article a form of self-promotion. The most reliable sources I found - Vice and The Tab are from members of the group too, even though they're not entirely supportive and often criticise the group as being "neofascist" and full of unnecessary trigger warnings (ghosts? birds?). Maybe the group will be notable in future, but at present it seems to be a passing phenomenon without any "significant" or mainstream press coverage. Sorry guys - maybe in a few years time? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club

Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of Notability, Numerous violations of POV Policies, use of Wikipedia as a tool for promotion and organization, inherent Wikipedian bias, COI from editors who have deleted numerous speedy deletion requests before discussion was allowed. . Shibbolethink (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep (full disclosure, I have contributed to this article) The article is well cited and asserts the group's notability. It has over 30,000 members, more than many other Internet communities with Wikipedia articles (such as Wikipediocracy), and has been profiled in sources like Vice and The Atlantic. My impression is that Wilson has been asking other users to contribute because they will do so with less COI. The article does not read like an advertisement or promotion. Positive reviews are presented alongside negative ones. The fact that more positive writings exist isn't a skewed point of view on Wikipedia's part. I don't know what "inherent Wikipedia bias" means, but if it means Wikipedians can't write about things related to Wikipedia, there are a lot more pages to delete. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi @Boomur: I dispute that the CFWC has been profiled by The Atlantic, it has been mentioned by Alexis Madrigal in a blog on tinyletter.com which does not qualify as a WP:RS. That AM is perhaps a deputy editor of The Atlantic doesn't change the fact that the CFWC hasn't been mentioned in The Atlantic itself. AadaamS (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentWikipediocracy is a website in which users from outside the environment can browse. While there may only be X amount of members, anyone can access the website. On the other hand, one has to be a member of CFWC to see all the posts in the group-there is no fair way to judge the sizes and impacts of each site. In addition, Wikipediocracy is devoted to discussing Wikipedia and the Wikimedia organization as a whole-a meta commentary. CFWC simply posts and shares Wikipedia articles, in which commentary may or may not take place. --Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment actually: regarding its visibility, unless you've been blocked from the group, "anyone can see the group, its members and their posts. With its current visibility settings, your Facebook friends' comments in the group can pop up in your newsfeed, not unlike a surprising Wikipedia find." Source: Mic Thus, both members and non-members can browse Wikipediocracy and CFWC equally.--DrWho42 (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedian bias is the inherent bias to see this group as notable simply because it is a group of people editing and reading wikipedia. There are no straight-up wikipedia articles about other edit-athons, only those within the category of edit-a-thons. Also, there is a skewing of positive vs negative bias because this article excludes the various other groups that have sprung out of CFWC, simply because of its "fascist" moderation policies. Several of those are mentioned in the references themselves, but are excluded from the main article because it has only been edited by, and for, the article's subject. The members of the group. In addition, Boomur is a prominent member of the group herself, having appeared and volunteered to help keep the article alive in the group's post found here. This user has unfairly deleted Speedy deletion requests, POV tags, and probably will do the same to this AfD request. Simply because this user is a prominent member of the group, and should have a COI tag in the talk page. --Shibbolethink (talk)
  • "Wikipedian bias" from the subject being "a group of people editing and reading wikipedia" is not a valid reason for deleting the article; Wikimania would need deleting also. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I already explained what I mean by "Wikipedian bias" elsewhere on this talk page. Wikipedia should not give special credence or notability to Facebook groups simply because they are organized "to share cool and freaky [interesting] wikipedia articles." If a group exists to organize people who read and edit wikipedia, it should be in the sphere of user-pages and where edit-a-thons go, not in a primary article of its own. There exists a subconscious vanity bias in all of us as Wikipedia users to see notability in groups dedicated to wikipedia. Wikimania exists on a whole other level of notability. It's a conference held annually that gathers real people to attend lectures and see exhibits and organize discussion panels. It has so many other aspects that raise it above notability, whereas this page, CFWC, does not. It is only a Facebook group.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Shibbolethink, I think you only get one vote per discussion, which in this case is the statement you made as nominator. Everymorning talk 23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment According to the references and as far as I know, the only other group that sprung out of CFWC's "fascist moderation policies" that has a reliable third-party source is Cool Nerds Trivia Club based on the Vice article: "Cool Freaks’ Wikipedia Club Is a Shitshow of Esoterica, Political Correctness, and Trigger Warnings".--DrWho42 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding Shibbolethink's comments, I don't see how letting people know that I was helping out with writing the page makes me a "prominent" member of CFWC. I am a member of the group, but I am not a moderator or anything else. Mostly just a reader. I have not "unfairly" removed any tags from the page. There is plenty of discussion on the talk page to prove that CSD and PROD tags were not appropriate. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There's also Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, and several others. These were mentioned in blog posts published by the same journalist who posted that Vice article. Everymorning, I assumed since the stats page on these votes only counted bolded statements, and didn't include my "Deletion" bolded in its count of "duplicate votes," that I had to also vote in bolded text. Thanks for the update. Also, Boomur, there was NOT enough discussion on the talk page to prove that POV tags were inappropriate, but you deleted those tags.--Shibbolethink (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• My mistake. I just noticed that I accidentally deleted the tag when deleting the last CSD. Besides that I don't recall removing any POV tags. ~ Boomur [☎] 00:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• While those groups exist, what source mentions them? Based on a search of the Vice article, they only mention Cool Nerds.--DrWho42 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• It was me who removed the POV tags because, per my note at the talk page, no dispute had actually taken place; someone was just slapping a POV tag on the article for no obvious reason. Sam Walton (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• SamWalton, you're misremembering. I went into the talk page and said "I will create that dispute!" And wrote out a small thesis on why the article has POV problems. Then, when Boomur was removing a CSD tag, she also removed the POV tag. Check the history. --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: if we're going to bring up canvassing, the banned member group Banned From Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club mentioned by Shibbolethink posted this: "We got a mention on this chill ass website".--DrWho42 (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Are we really doing this right now? Has it gotten this low? @DrWho42: That user is a sock/meat puppet facebook account coming from.....you. (Redacted evidence not viewable). --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• sorry @Shibbolethink:, the Facebook user in your screenshots is named Mike Kabinsky, not Mike Kaminksy. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh @Boomur:, it makes me so happy that you've resorted to trolling. If you had kept clicking, you would see that I also included a screenshot of the relationship between one and the other. There's a large collective of very similar users on Facebook that all have variations on the same name and all have profile pictures of tons of people in suits in a specific orientation. (link redacted) Here they are, all together in the probably fake group "Banned from Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club." But you already knew that. --Shibbolethink (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'd like to address this comment in 3 parts: 1) I had removed my comment before you replied to it, which must have presented you with some edit conflict even if you began to reply before I did so. I am not sure why you have restored my comment. 2) I do not know what you mean by "trolling", but I acknowledge that I failed to notice the final screenshot. 3) I'm not exactly sure what you are insisting this means. ~ Boomur [☎] 05:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I lost that whole "good faith" thing that is supposed to be kept in these discussions and thought you were trolling, probably because DrWho42 just tried to pass off a parody of an offshoot of his own facebook group as a real collection of people who can be canvassed and I thought you would already be aware. When copying over my comment, I copied over the entire block, I didn't notice that the edit conflict had to do with more than signing my comment. If you want to remove it, just delete this thread up to my initial reply to DrWho42 with imgur links. My apologies.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Forgiving my new account as I've decided not to go with my old, very embarassing and innuendo laden name, I'd like to go forward with what I have to say. To be fair I was also in the group Banned From Cool Freaks (before Mike Kaminsky banned me for, well, being a notable member of CFWC), and User talk:DrWho42 knows me, and yet that Mike Kaminsky regularly went out of their way to sling slurs at me constantly and that was their only interaction with me. You've proven that there's a loose collection of characters that had a same name, their spontaneous creation was more than 6 months ago however, and they haven't really been active especially no evidence of any collaboration by them especially of late. The Mike Kaminsky that was shown as the admin of Banned from Cool Freaks is literally the only active Mike Ka*insky I've seen. On top of which, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove by claiming that User talk:DrWho42 is Mike Kaminsky or what he would even gain by showing people who would have animosity for Cool Freaks Wikipedia club that we're disputing the Wikipedia Page. --Paradoxparasol (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Paradoxparasol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'm not Mike Kaminsky but I can blank the name if it pleases the discussion. As far as I know, Mike Kaminsky is a meme based on the comedic device of repetition which in this case is several Facebook accounts all claiming to be Mike Kaminsky.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFREE only applies to real names of people in screenshots.--Shibbolethink (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• The reality of Facebook names is a digression of this discussion as many Facebook users adopt new names to reflect their identity and I would not argue this point further. For example, Facebook real-name policy controversy. I respect the wishes of this discussion to omit names from my screenshots and thus have done so.--DrWho42 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Boomur, the page is biased towards the group because positive responses are much better documented in the page than negative ones. Also, I fail to see how the fact that the Facebook page has 30,000 members makes it notable. There are plenty of subreddits with a lot more subscribers than CFWC has members, but that doesn't mean they need their own Wikipedia page. IamA and TIL are both subsections of the article for Reddit, and each have over 7 million subscribers http://redditlist.com/. If they aren't notable enough for their own pages, why is CFWC? WatsonCaesar (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — WatsonCaesar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Also, TIL and IAMA have many third party references in the annals of various news organizations: VizWorld, ComicBook.com, and The Washington Post. --Shibbolethink (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Surely that's more of an argument for editors to make articles for TIL/IAMA if they meet the notability criteria as you have posited than for the CFWC article to be removed. An article meeting notability criteria should not be deleted simply because other potentially notable subjects have not yet had articles created for them, editors who are well-versed in the subject should be filling in the gaps. Felineastatine (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Felineastatine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • I didn't suggest that IamA or any other subreddit meets the notability requirement (quite the opposite in fact). I think they are served quite well by their current entries as part of the main article for Reddit, and that if larger, more influential groups don't meet the requirement for notability, then neither does CFWC. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NPOV does not require that all views are given equal page space, but that they are represented equal to their coverage; if you have more positive reception than negative it would be false balance to write equal lengths covering each. I think the article does this fine. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Also I noticed that there was a link to this deletion discussion posted in CFWC about an hour ago (along with an earlier request for the removal of a speedy deletion tag from this article on the Afrikaans Wikipedia) which I think makes an excellent case for this page just being a promotional tool. WatsonCaesar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I'll be honest and say, as a member, i'm biased. Shibbolethink, however, you refer to the moderation policies as "fascist" in a manner that implies that you agree with that assessment, making you look pretty biased against the group. Look, this is a comprehensive, well researched, well sourced article for a facebook group with a large number of members, and dare i say the article shows a pretty neutral point of view. There are plenty of articles here that don't meet the notability standards, but this is one that, while NOT NECESSARILY meeting the standards (I'll be honest, i don't know where i stand on that), seems to be tagged for deletion much quicker than many other non-notable articles. I say, as it's a facebook group that has been reported on by major publications, that that does qualify it as notable, and i'd say keep. drlemon98 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that drlemon98 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
  • Comment hi @Drlemon98: if you meant that you are a member of that Facebook group, then I would suggest you are better off not voting due to WP:COISELF. Please change your vote to a Comment. AadaamS (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think that's a little excessive. The Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club article has nothing to do with drlemon98, their family, or any personal pursuit of theirs. Members of the group are not receiving money from the group, nor are they financially invested in it. Being a part of the group does not necessarily advance the group's interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests—why should it? The level of COI for anyone who is not an administrator of the group is pretty low, I think. Subscribing to The New York Times doesn't make someone ineligible to write about it. ~ Boomur [☎] 00:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Boomur: I have never maintained that users in that group should not write about the group, on the contrary, I would welcome if users in the group could find WP:RS to support their claim that the group is notable. I wrote that they should refrain from voting, not writing. I take it you don't agree so we'll have to agree to disagree. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The usage of the word "fascist" is literally the exact same wording as that in the vice article. I should have put quotes around it. "Periodically I see outbursts from members of CFWC pop up in my feed—people driven to Network-style meltdowns about the fascist hypersensitivity of the Cool Freaks' moderators. Those tirades quickly disappear as the writer is booted and the page is scrubbed clean again."-River Donaghey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibbolethink (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete This page is 100% promotional material for a Facebook page. It is a prime example of bias within Wikipedia. As a researcher I regularly use Wikipedia in order to answer questions and aid in my research. A number of my colleagues argue that a mass-user encyclopedia is not a reputable source, while I disagree. However, when editors blatantly ignore a relatively simple epistemological criteria for distinguishing "knowledge" from "non-knowledge", they strike at the importance of this knowledge. There is no informational value to knowing about this facebook page, there is no scholarly value to knowing about this facebook page, and there is no consistent sense of incompleteness without this page. To keep it is a strike against the increasingly free spread of knowledge. Lxplot (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: it should be noted that User:Lxplot has removed their SPA tag despite having made few edits.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment User: DrWho42, I have made a larger number of edits than you on a larger number of topics (you vs. me. If there is any legitimate reason for me to be tagged as SPA, please explain why it does not apply to you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lxplot (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: correction, DoctorWho42.--DrWho42 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment DrWho42, why do you have two accounts?--Shibbolethink (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, that was confusing. Regardless, it can be observed that I've made contributions to topics in my area of expertise (read: not this) Lxplot (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Firstly, I am a member of the group (not a moderator, not a frequent commenter, just a member). Wikipedia only decides whether articles are suitable subjects for inclusion based on their coverage in reliable third party sources. This article has enough of such sources in my opinion. I'm not at all convinced by any of the above delete rationales - articles simply aren't deleted because of their authors, but based on whether they adequately meet the notability guidelines. If you don't think the subject has been covered in sufficient reliable sources then argue that - arguments based on the author or that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on similar subjects aren't valid. Sam Walton (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I really think everyone above is misunderstanding the use of such "other examples." The point is that these subdivisions of Facebook and Reddit are not notable on their own. They only exist as groups of people on Facebook or Reddit to organize people who like Wikipedia. They don't do anything else, they have no other purpose. There should exist a higher bar of notability for such subjects, or else there are INFINITE subdivisions of what should be on Wikipedia. All the third party sources simply discuss the groups existence, and most of those references are personal blog posts themselves. If I go on my tumblr web blog and say, "I love using /r/Wikipedia." I don't think it qualifies as a third party source providing notability. That's the nature of most of the external sources Boomur and DrWho42 are using: web blogs from people who have used the Facebook Group. Also, it's important to say, the amount of members in the group should be thought of under the lens of other group memberships, and the total userbase of Facebook as a whole. This listicle: "The 25 Facebook groups with over 1 million members" shows how inflated membership numbers in Facebook groups can be. Each of these has more than 33 1/3 times as many members as Cool Freaks Wikipedia Club, has been mentioned in several third party news sources (listicles and web blogs and tweets), but I really do not think they are notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Even moreso, there's something very interesting about most of the entries in that listicle: they no longer exist! This is because Facebook Groups and Subreddits are both inherently unstable! CFWC shuffles around 90% of its moderators every couple of weeks, and Subreddits are well known for their lack of stability, and that's why they get deleted so often! And that's why they should have a higher bar of notability.--Shibbolethink (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment As an administrator of the group, I'm refraining from the vote, but I would like to point out that your claim that "90% of its moderators are shuffled every couple of weeks" is completely false and unsubstantiated. If you are going to make arguments toward the merits of its notability, you cannot simply will other realities into existence. There are over three dozen moderators -- all of whom have been steady since my tenure began over seven months ago. I'd like to note that when you come to edit this discussion, the prompt at the top does specifically say that unsupported statements have little weight in the discussion. Nb. as you continue this arbitrary -- and, dare I add, regarding your account, single-purpose? -- crusade against this specific page. --Stellaproiectura (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment @Stellaproiectura:, Calling me a single purpose account is a very serious accusation that should be backed up with evidence. If you'll take a look at my userpage, you'll see that I created this account a while before the CFWC page even existed. Also, I engaged in edits of various other disparate articles between then and now, and continue to do so. So I suggest you research a /little/ bit more before saying such, as you say, unsubstantiated claims. Unfortunately, I don't have the Admin list from Facebook over time, but I do have screenshots that are from specific former Admins that time and time again "step down or are forced out." I'll grab those in a sec --Shibbolethink (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi @Samwalton9: as a member of the Facebook group I would suggest that you refrain from voting, please change your keep vote to a comment due to WP:COISELF. Regards, AadaamS (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Noted that you suggest I refrain from voting but I'm not going to strike my vote simply because I happen to be in the group. I don't run it, I don't even frequently post there. This would be akin to suggesting I'm not allowed to vote on an AfD for a cereal brand because I happen to eat it. Sam Walton (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete the subject of that page lacks notability per the WP:GNG as no WP:RS verifies the notability of the subject Facebook group. AadaamS (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• CommentFurther Self-promotion evidence lies in the correlation of the view statistics and the posts on the group itself. Seen here, one can notice the massive spike in views (about 3400) coinciding with December 30th. That was also the day of the article's creation, and the day that wikipedia user DrWho42 posted this on the public group, using the conversion of UTC on those Facebook times, it's clear the views of the article directly followed this post. 3400 views that day, and then nothing more, as that post in the Facebook group itself sank to the bottom. I therefore posit that the only views this article gets are from people who are in the group itself, and those who want to see it deleted, and a small minority of random other people. The only people who have written the article are those who are prominent members of the group, and the only views they have received are from all the other members. I think this is a product of the "herd mentality" that this group demonstrates. I don't want to pass any opinions on the political leanings of the group or anything like that, but, if one were to read this sandbox article from DrWho42, it's clear how much self promotion this group's normal proceedings entail. I wager that the creation of this public wikipedia page is just an extension of that self-promotion. --Shibbolethink (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Page views are also not a valid reason for deleting an article. For probably the third time, this article being created for promotion is not an adequate reason for deletion. Valid reasons should be based on the existence or lack of reliable sources covering the subject. Sam Walton (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, an article being created for promotion IS an adequate reason for deletion. See here: What is deletion for? and then click " What Wikipedia is Not" and scroll down to " Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Your first link is an essay, not a guideline or policy. WP:PROMOTION says nothing about deletion policy, just that Wikipedia isn't for advertisement. The actual policy page you're looking for is WP:DELETE which states that reasons for deletion may include "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" (emphasis mine). Thus, please feel free to argue that the content isn't encyclopedic or doesn't meet notability, but don't falsely claim that just because an article may have been started for advertisement purposes that it should be deleted without question. Sam Walton (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually @Sam Walton:, the first article says, right at the top: "This page is here to help familiarize you with some of the guidelines and policies relevant to deletion." Also, it's not about being started for advertising purposes, it's about existing as a promotion. WP:Promotion is very much a valid reason for deleting an article. Especially when notability isn't met.--Shibbolethink (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete subject is laughably un-notable. No one cares about it except the members themselves. We might as well have Wikipedia articles for individual subreddits or MySpace pages or that random guy on Facebook who inexplicably has 4,996 friends. --Jtle515 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Could the delete voters please go through each source used in the article and explain why each isn't a reliable source? Do that and I'll change my vote to delete because you'll have convinced me that the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Saying you don't feel like the subject is suitable or that the article was created by a COI editor are not valid arguments. Sam Walton (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Imho it is also up to the creator/keepers of the article to demonstrate how the article satisfies WP:WEB: When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.. Also, it's not enough that a subject is mentined in a WP:RS that source must also explain why the subject of this article is important along the guideline of the previously text in italics. No source in the article has demonstrated why that Facebook group is important. It hasn't won any awards, it hasn't a large number of mentions in mainstream media and no source demonstrates significant IRL impact. The article needs better sources to verify its notability if it is to stay a standalone. Which sources do you think verifies the notability of that Facebook group alonge the lines of WP:WEB? AadaamS (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Of the sources in the article; BetaBeat, a subset of the New York Observer, have an article which describes the group as "the Only Facebook Group You Need" and seems to be a reliable source. The mic.com article seems reliable, written by a member of staff of a website which seems to provide editorial oversight. I'm pretty sure Vice is a reliable source, with quite a long article covering many aspects of the group written by a staff writer. The Tab is debatable, the author doesn't seem to have written many articles and I believe it's a student-run website. The other references are also debatable, some being blogs, but I think the above three and the article make this a borderline keep. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Sam Walton (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, yes the NY Observer and Vice (magazine) are indeed reliable sources, but is there a consensus among internet experts that CFWC is the only Facebook group a FB user needs? Not that I know of. Neither article mentions any impact the group has had on anything like culture, history, society, economics, science or anything at all. So while the sources themselves are reliable, they don't verify the notability of CFWC. The Tab is a student magazine and they don't count as WP:RS. The Wellington Library is a trivial mention and so it also doesn't help to establish notability. AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to adhere to WP:N by almost any measure. 30,000 members is hardly a large number for a Facebook group-there are numerous Facebook groups with over a million members that warrant no entry, why should this be any different. Article is obvious self-promotion, and violates WP:PROMO. Also doesn't really have WP:NPOV, as those who have created page and introduced most edits are admins of said group. There is also very little reason why this is important. As has been said, every other Subreddit or chat room or sub-forum on other Internet sites warrants a Wikipedia page, why should CFWC be any different? Not to mention a severe lack of sources, nor any other external references. Blueshirt21 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Blueshirt21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Per Sam Walton above. Article is informative, group is notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wwwhatsup (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Not canvassed. But a member of the group. I put the Wikipedia page on my watchlist when I joined. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: An admin of the "banned from CFWC" Facebook group The Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia, which User:Shibbolethink mentioned, has been canvassing its ~800 members. Source: imgur screenshot--DrWho42 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I was also sent that message, and I can speak to the rest of the message that you edited out. It said the following: "Don't just go to the article and start commenting/voting if you don't already have an editor account. That's against the rules, and you should have an editor account anyway. If you want to comment and don't have an account, actually USE your editor's account in other articles, both because it shows that you're a real person who cares and therefore it's not breaking the rules, but also because editing is fun." --Shibbolethink (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, you can't post screenshots of Facebook with user's names included on Wikipedia. It's against WP:NOTFREE. Take it down please.--Shibbolethink (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I've edited out the names but that is the full transcript based on what I've received personally.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Hi, I know I'm not supposed to comment without an account, but I'm the author of that message. It was sent to ~7 people who I personally know and Shibbolethink is right, I discourage explicitly people who hadn't used wikipedia before from commenting. That's against the ruels. Also, It was not sent broadly to users of DPRW, or "canvassed" or posted anywhere publicly.--205.208.122.25 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Also, for the record, Democratic People's Republic of Wikipedia is not a "banned from CFWC" group. The cross list of its members with those that are banned from CFWC is not the majority. Most of the members have never heard of Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club.--205.208.122.126 (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I have to agree with some of the other comments that this page is 100% promotional material for the group and should therefore not be allowed on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but a bunch of people on Facebook who share Wikipedia articles with each other cannot be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination. Whitehat2009 (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Whitehat2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • You are indeed right because so far, the keepers have not managed to demonstrate how to verify its notability per WP:WEB. AadaamS (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm quoting from WP:WEBCRIT here: "non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability" This is particularly damning. As you said, the Keeps have to show that CFWC "has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Shibbolethink: please explain why you continue to claim that all the article's sources are self-published blog posts by group members. It has been established above that the article uses reliable third party sources. ~ Boomur [☎] 19:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Boomur: I didn't say all, I said "most of those references are personal blog posts themselves" and most of them are. The Atlantic mention, the library mention, the Honi Suit article is barely about CFWC, it's a virtual listicle just like the Paste article. The Tab doesn't employ professional journalists, neither does Honi Suit. Honestly the only two possibly worthwhile sources for proving notability are Vice and Mic. The Mic.com article, btw, isn't searchable or referenced in any other aspect of the Mic.com site itself. When you search Mic.com, it doesn't show up. I suspect this is because the art.mic.com contributor in question, Gabe Berado's articles on Social Media don't merit site-wide mention. And the Vice article doesn't really contribute to notability so much as lack thereof. The entire article is about how unstable the Facebook group is. If this group disappeared tomorrow because of a massive coup by one or two admins, as has happened in the past history of the group (see here), society as a whole wouldn't even notice. The third party sources themselves probably wouldn't even alter their articles. The only people aware of the change would be the group's members themselves. You guys. Honestly, you should just make a notable groups subheading on the Facebook article and be happy.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• @Boomur:, also, it's important to realize that the WP:RS standards are actually pretty stringent. School newspapers, opinion pieces, editorials, and other such non fact based articles are less reliable for notability. Especially when considering the bias of some authors. If the editor of a piece is close personal friends with an admin of CFWC, that lessens the notability addition of that article. The article I'm alluding to hasn't been published yet, but when it is, I don't think it'll help the notability case that much. For reference, here's a quote from WP:RS: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces."--Shibbolethink (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Although a number of verifiable references have been cited, the topic probably falls short of the requirement: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" detailed in WP:WEBCRIT. The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers -- not particularly reliable. Piboy51 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Group is big enough and influential enough to be notable, article is unbiased. The only criticisms of bias come from people who really go and try hard to find things that the article doesn't mention. Vhata (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (PST)
• Delete - size is not a primary guide to inclusion, neither is there any verifiable evidence presented of the group being wp:rs "influential enough to be notable" - The sources are opinion pieces, blogs, and student newspapers - not particularly good quality sources to establish WP:Notability - fails WP:WEBCRIT and wp:web and the WP:GNG imo Govindaharihari (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Is pretty evidently notable, more so than some political parties or movements. RoyalMate1 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is evident. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is certainly not evident. I agree with the comment above that content does not meet the requirement that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". There is a lot of noise above that should be ignored. Members of the group should certainly be allowed to have a say here. There is no conflict of interest. I am not a member and do not intend to join it, but if I was a member, I would still think it did not deserve an article. There is no reason why being a member means you support having an article. All members are wikipedians who know how wikipedia works, or at least should do. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Bduke really hit it on the head here. Myself and several others have been somewhat overzealous in requesting COI or lack of votes from members of the group, as one does not imply the other. But even so, a rational third party observer who reads WP:RS, WP:AKON, and WP:N, and WP:WEB, and then this AfD, and the source article, is forced to conclude that the article in question doesn't meet these grounds: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice." AND "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."--Shibbolethink (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is evident. EricthePinko (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• The topic's notability is not "evident" as a number of people think the article is non-notable. Would you please explain why you think the article is notable? Piboy51 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• As an addition to the explanation, verifiable evidence for its notability has to be demonstrated. Deletion discussions of truly notable subjects usually end very quickly in a hurricane of such evidence provided by those who want to keep the article. AadaamS (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Article fulfills notability guidelines based on reliable third-party sources as demonstrated by The New York Observer, Fast Company, and Mic. Due to this substantial coverage, Cool Freaks' Wikipedia Club should remain along the ranks of Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review since it reflects how the wiki translates into human culture with "memes" like toast sandwich and list of lists of lists. Its criticism is also balanced based on the reporting thus far and shows the general consensus until more news accumulates.--Electricbolt (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Electricbolt: Wikipediocracy is an irrelevant comparison because that article has about 4 times as many sources and is mentioned in 3 mainstream newspappers: The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. Unlike the sources for this article, those mentions in the newspapers also demonstrate the impact of Wikipediocracy. The sources you refer to in your vote only demonstrate that the group is there and how it functions, there is no mention of impact as per WP:WEBCRIT. AadaamS (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability hinges on junk food news sources, not the significant coverage in non-trivial works that WP:N speaks of. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – The topic meets WP:WEBCRIT per coverage in New York Observer, Vice, Mic. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, nice secondary source discussion. — Cirt (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm a member, not an admin of the group, and after reading this thread I'm not convinced being one of 30,000 members is a COI; thus, I'm marking this post "Keep." I believe this article should not be deleted because decentralized online communities like these facebook groups carry significant weight in globalized culture. Who these people are, why they are organized, and what rules they use to govern themselves are significant and interesting questions. The online sources supplied demonstrate that there is external interest in the topic, and that Cool Freaks and its related groups are notable. Does the article have some issues? Yes. Does it need a rewrite? Probably. But such is not an argument for deletion. Jordanbowden (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC) — Jordanbowden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:ASR. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: The Atlantic, Vice, and other good RS's do, in fact, prove notability. I saw a few comments about subreddits getting their own pages, and if there's enough sources to prove notability, then why not? It's tempting to fall into a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but we should avoid these. Is this article self-referential? Sure, but again, we have the independent sources, so we're fine with articles like this about Wikipedia-related stuff. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Whilst the sources are "independent", they're hardly *good* sources - most just detail what the group is. I and my friends could go out and write four or five personal blog pieces about a group of our choice on LinkedIn that has even more members - that doesn't mean that group would deserve its own wiki page. This article is quite clearly self promotion, and also is of no interest to anyone who isn't in or close to the group - as shown by the complete lack of reputable sources. The "New York Observer" source is also a little misleading - the piece wasn't published in the newspaper, it was published in an online blog which is operated by the newspaper group. Jbjp91 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC) — Jbjp91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Already speedily deleted under g7. Already speedily deleted under g7 (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Bus Routes in Jiangmen City, China

List of Bus Routes in Jiangmen City, China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no real content to merit an article Jac16888 ^Talk 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why this article is tagged for deletion, and I disagree with it. I've seen many other list of bus routes on wikipedia like for Calgary, Edmonton, London, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, so why not create one about Jiangmen? If you think that Jiangmen is too small of a city, then you're wrong. Jiangmen has a population that is bigger than some of the cities I listed above.Tony0517 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a list of numbers and a list of places, that has no encyclopedic value, and the content you're now adding (times & charges) is even worse, wikipedia is not a directory--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case, why'd you allow the existence of the other pages about lists of bus routes. Those are the pages that made me think there should be one for Jiangmen too. Tony0517 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

[2]][[User:Tony0517|Tony0517] (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - page creator should read WP:NOTDIRECTORY Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Immunome Research

Immunome Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Journal of no consequence published by a no-name publisher. No impact factor, etc. Currently published by OMICS Publishing Group [3], which is listed as a probable predatory open-access publishing group by Jeffrey Beall.[4] Bueller 007 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This publisher is definitely fishy. The journal is indexed in Scopus, perhaps a remnant from when it was BMC published. I have been arguing for a while that we should not use Scopus indexation as evidence for notability of a journal, given their lax inclusion policy. Rather than concluding that this journal is notable because it is Scopus indexed, I'd rather argue that this inclusion supports my assertion about Scopus. However, given that it is accepted use in journal AfDs to accept Scopus coverage as evidence for notability, I am refraining from casting a !vote at this point, so that the larger community can give their opinion about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the record, WP:NJournals says that having an impact factor (which this journal does not have) is "always evidence of notability". It does not make the same statement about Scopus, it merely lists it as an example of one of the indexing services one might consider. The only indexing services that include this journal (Chemical Abstracts Service, EBSCO Information Services and Scopus) are very non-selective and should not be taken as an indicator of quality or notability. They are likely holdovers from back when this journal was published by BMC. The journal is not indexed in any biological service, which is odd because it is primarily a biology journal. From their website[5], it can also be seen that they published only 14 articles in 2014 (yes, that's 14 ~articles~, not 14 ~issues~) and they published zero(!) articles in 2013 and three(!) articles in 2012. Junk publisher; junk journal. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with you. When I remarked on Scopus being taken as indicating notability, I was referring to the AfD practice of the last several years, not NJournals. Scopus should have delisted this journal a while ago. As I said, Scopus is rapidly losing credibility in my eyes, but I don't think other people editing in this area would agree with that. perhaps it is time to revisit this. I'm pinging DGG to see what he thinks about this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I suspect the Scopus indexing was primarily due to the BMC affiliation. I however think that Scopus indexing does constitute a weak indication of notability--it is not true they have no standards, as is proven by the fact that they index none or almost none of the other journals from the current publisher. Looking at other factors, until the most recent two years they published almost no articles; more recently, most of their articles have been invited reviews and editorials, which indicate effort to become more significant. I think the overall impression is "not yet notable". (Incidentally, some Omics journals -- not this one -- lay claim to an impact factor, but say in footnotes that it issn unofficial impact factor, based on google Scholar. When we say an impact factor proves notability, we mean an official SCI or SSCI impact factor, not these.) DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete The nom and Randykitty make a good case against the current Scopus indexing as contributing to notability--there could be some inertia on Scopus' part in delisting. But we need to be careful not to engage in recentism. The journal has fallen on hard times, but the question is, was it notable in the 2005-2011 BMC/Springer era? For the first several years there was only one issue a year, with <10 articles per issue. To me it looks like it was a serious journal that was having trouble gaining traction. The Scopus listing contributes to notability, but I wonder if the listing was because of the importance of the journal or the importance of BMC. This case seems a judgement call, but lack of articles, lack of impact factor and uncertain motivation for the Scopus listing even in the BMC era, suggests to me a marginal delete, with no prejudice to recreation if the journal takes off and regains credibility, impact factors, etc. The basic facts of the journal are verifiable, however, so I don't see any problem with a mention in, e.g., a list of BMC journals. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. My impression is that this was once a relatively high-impact but very low-output journal. I don't think it maintained its high-impact status long enough (or published enough articles) to be notable, as suggested by the fact that it has never had an impact factor, even during its "glory days" with BMC. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep I agree that Scopus indexing is poor evidence for notability. HOWEVER, I think that this article could be expanded to include notes on the journal's predatory practices, the journal's acquisition by OMICS group, etc. Notable is not synonymous with "good for science." right? I think this journal is notable BECAUSE of its predatory practices, and the articles written about those practices. They establish that the journal has received outside notice and impact, since it was REMOVED from pubmed for being predatory. That's an interesting and notable fact that deserves a mention on Wiki. --Shibbolethink (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The problems that caused the delisting of this journal are not unique to this journal; they apply to all OMICS-published journals, and they are covered on that page. Surely the hundreds of questionable journals published by OMICS do not each deserve their own page just because they share a predatory publisher. This argument doesn't make sense. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. As far as I know there are absolutely no sources discussing this particular journal, nor its change to OMICS, not its current state. As I didn't !vote earlier: Delete, per DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season

2003-04 Aldershot Town F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NSEASONS, non-league season article JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS, WP:NOTSTATS... GiantSnowman 10:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - per NSEASONS, current consensus is that only fully professional leagues are of a sufficiently high standard to warrant individual club season articles. Also a clear NOTSTATS failure due to the complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Adam_Spencer#Book. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 06:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers

Adam Spencer's Big Book of Numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed by creator. Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Could redirect to Adam Spencer#Book. Boleyn (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. I couldn't really find anything to show that this book passes notability guidelines. It exists, but existing does not mean notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete unless enough third-party media attention can be found to justufy a separate article per WP:GNG. In its current sourceless state it doesn't look notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  09:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the creator of the article, but doesn't it now meet WP:GNG due to it having two reliable sources in The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, in which it is the main focus point?Jjamesryan (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I regard WP:NBOOK as probably Wikipedia's worst notability guideline (with WP:PROF coming a close second) as virtually all widely-published books and a hell of a lot of vanity press works meet it, but this does seem to meet its criterion 1. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• So, Nick-D, does that mean it's a Keep? Jjamesryan (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Afraid not - I don't want to endorse WP:NBOOK (which clearly isn't consistent with WP:GNG given the low level of sourcing it specifies), and don't think that this is a particularly noteworthy book. I just wanted to note this. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • But, doesn't it also meet the GNG? Significant coverage, as it is the main focus point of the article, reliable as they are The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, two well-known and well-respected newspapers, I am unsure about the definition of primary, seconary and tertiary sources, they are independent of the subject, and I don't really understand the presumed bit. Jjamesryan (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • The articles are lightweight promotional pieces Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Favonian (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When The Horses Are Running And The Dogs Are Silent

When The Horses Are Running And The Dogs Are Silent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources given, and article is written in a dubious "here are the tour dates but they haven't been confirmed by the artist or her label" style, with some "critical backlash" stuff that I've cut as unsourced WP:BLP. Seems to be a WP:HOAX as the only Google results for the title refer to a 2010 Ellen DeGeneres prank about an "imaginary film" of the exact same name. McGeddon (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources have been found whatsoever on Google. I used Yahoo to prove the album's existence but still no results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowager (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There seems to be significant consensus to keep, and none to delete. I fail to see why this was nominated, seeing as the CSD nominations were clearly disruptive editing. (non-admin closure) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hamza Makhdoom

Hamza Makhdoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Sourced. Historical personality of local fame and beyond. Google returns over 80,000 hits of the search string Hamza Makhdoom Kashmir. Original article (this one is a re-creation after too hasty deletion) was maliciously nominated for speedy deletion by a single-purpose account that aimed to erase from Wikipedia anything that would "steal" the title of "Sultan-ul-Arifeen" from Sultan Bahu – whilst Hamza Makhdoom, a maedieval sufi, is also known under this exact name. Hence, the editor speedy tagged all articles where this title was mentioned: Hamza Makhdoom, Makhdoom, Hari Parbat (because of Hamza Makhdoom shrine located there) and, ultimately, he/she went on to edit Sultan-ul-Arifeen to remove any reference to Hamza Mahkdoom from there. An SPI is in the making because it is very clear who the master is. kashmiri ^TALK 21:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - victim of a sock/meatfarm harassment campaign, or something along those lines. Regardless, he appears to be a historic saint, so I'm pretty sure that he's notable. There is also [6] in addition to what is currently in the article, and almost certainly far more available for those whom are familiar with Indian sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep He is very notable in reality for his works in Kashmir valley. So there is no option of deleting the article. I have visited the place numerous times and visualized the tens of thousands of people visiting the place, that really confirms notability of the person for me. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 21:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Having a significant shrine dedicated to a subject seems like a compelling case for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nitesh Estates Limited

Nitesh Estates Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article about subject that seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• KEEP - the company is notable all over the world. Even its MD's page is also existing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitesh_Shetty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Kratipaw34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete -Yes, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. We may however make a redirect to the Nitesh Shetty article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - it follows WP:CORPDEPTH. All content are verifiable. Ramesh 12:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) — Ramesh985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Nitesh Estates Limited is a notable company. The sources used over here are of the media sites Economic Times, Deccan Herald, Money Control etc. that in itself states that its notable 46.229.224.226 (talk · contribs) 12:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — jolly.smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • @Jolly.smith: - it looks like you forgot to log in to post the above -- please log in in order to change the signature back to your username (just an identity protection measure). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This smells of a sockpuppetry case, Rhododendrites. Ethically^Yours! 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for (1) lack of notability (WP:CORPDEPTH isn't met, only the "New King" ref approaches what is requried), (2) for being promotional per WP:TNT, and (3) for copyright violations for text taken from [7]. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Totally promotional, sources do not support notability at all.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sheyi Ojo

Sheyi Ojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - based on [8], [9] (goes a little beyond just a routine quick interview), [10]/[11]/[12] (how many 14 year olds get this level of coverage for signing a contract with a club, even a Liverpool/Chelsea size club?). Absolutely no question that he fails NFOOTY, but I *think* he meets GNG based on these sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - certainly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and seems to fail WP:GNG. Not convinced by the coverage, it's all too "OMG a young prospect!!!" for my liking. GiantSnowman 20:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - clear NFOOTY fail, and the coverage noted above is very much along the lines of routine, "this guy could be great in a few years" gossip. What has this player actually done? Answer: nothing, he is just a hot prospect potentially, he hasn't even crashed and burned and generated coverage because of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Not convinced the article meets WP:GNG. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I see no independent non-trivial coverage at all: "young lad does well at little club, goes to big club and might play for them sometime" is no basis for appearance in an encyclopedia. It's decent background material for when and if he actually does something worth noting, but that's all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Quackademic medicine

Quackademic medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a term used primarily by one blogger (David Gorski), which lacks coverage in reliable sources independent of his blogs (by which I mean both Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine). Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Vague neologism with little penetration in media. Googling yields 186 distinct results. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - For the record; the article creator was banned for socking. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Ridiculous. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A-11 and so tagged. Ridiculous indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Changing !vote as CSD tag was removed (probably correctly). Subject clearly fails WP:N and WP:NEO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY 'X is a Y term' should surely be a clue here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete and not promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Contrary to nominator statement, term is actually used by at least two bloggers, three excellent refs already in article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is that the term "Quackademic medicine" is not used in the second source (Novella), and the third source doesn't appear to be at all reliable-just a blogspot post on the blog of a non-notable person. Everymorning talk 16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This article (Quackademic Medicine) has been copy and pasted in it's entirety into the article titled Quackery. Not sure if this affectes the discussion here? 108.181.201.237 16:23, January 11, 2015‎ (UTC)

• Reverted. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see any effect here. This is about notability, the basic criteria for article creation. The content is perfectly legitimate as content in other articles, even if this article were deleted. A kneejerk reversion is not proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have replied on the talk page of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete A sentence describing this concept could be put into the article on "quackery" but there is nothing distinct or notable here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking notability. Some coverage in the Quackery article would be due, as others have said. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect Why not just put the majority of this article under Quackery in a section on Academic Medicine flavor of quackery? It's a unique subflavor of Quackery that revolves around spoofing academic medicine, not just establishing oneself as an alternative medicine practitioner. I think it deserves at least some mention on Wiki, probably under a subheading.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I wouldn't strongly oppose a redirect, but I can't really see the value given the limited use of the term. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I get the feeling that most (WP:SNOW) are agreed that a separate article isn't warranted simply because of lack of notability and neologism concerns. There is also some recognition that brief mention in the quackery article would be acceptable. I agree with both POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Links (programming language)

Links (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unsourced article, does not appear to be a notable programming language Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – Is (was?) a project at the University of Edinburgh. A test of programming languages is whether they are used by anyone other than their creators, and this one doesn't seem to be, aside from one German dissertation.That might be because it appears to use a rather esoteric functional programming language (OCaml). Microsoft has a component called LINQ that is similar, and they are sometimes mentioned together, but LINQ works with Visual Studio, so there is no competition there. If we kept it, it would be only for the sake of completeness. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I could not find any significant third party coverage, a requirement for notability per WP:SIGCOV. Piboy51 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think there might be one source here. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The main publication about this language has 239 citations according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. APerson (talk!) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Margin1522. All information I can find about this subject related to it being only a project at the University of Edinburgh. Steel1943 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy-Moldova relations

Italy-Moldova relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really is not much to this relationship besides embassies and diplomatic recognition. No evidence of leaders visits, significant trade or agreements. Even the Moldova embassy can't describe any significant relations LibStar (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

*cough* [13] *cough* Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on leaders visits. LibStar (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• KeepThe subject is notable. The article has to be improved.User:Lucifero4

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: this article is anticipated to be speedily moved to Italy–Moldova relations. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - the subject is notable but the !vote above mine will likely be disregarded as completely unsubstantiated. There's a fairly extensive record of visits between the two countries in what is essentially a 20-year diplomatic history. The countries are geographically not that far apart, such that a reasonable trade relationship might be inferred though none can be verified at this point. The Italian embassy has only been open since 2008 and in the time since there have been 3 official visits including one to Italy by the Acting President of the Republic of Moldova. The coverage associated with a state visit like that is almost certain to produce WP:GNG-level coverage, even if we haven't found it yet. Yes, that's a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument, but I think its a valid and logical one in the context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, Italo-Moldovan/Bessarabian relations go way more back than 20 years, see https://books.google.com/books?id=_6j9SosuzxwC&pg=PA417 --Soman (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Arun Kumar Rajan

Arun Kumar Rajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.It is case of WP:TOOSOON and is currently not notable VanishingRainbow (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON.182.65.166.60 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Azhagi (TV series). Bladesmulti (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and/or Redirect - Can't find any direct coverage for this guy. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Toiran.com

Toiran.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails GNG - sources are all to company's own website, YouTube, or Facebook DOCUMENT★ERROR 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

Vernon Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a problem biography. The subject is a crackpot (check the ASA complaint against him, for example), and I thought he was a notable crackpot, but in the end I can only find one mainstream source that's about him. Everything else seems to track back to himself. IMDB is listed as a source for his having had a book made into a film> That's a directory entry, not a source. One newspaper article referenced, I cannot trace in the archives (may be just my bad search-fu). Another one exists but is clearly a caricature not a serious profile, though it accurately sums up the fact that his books are self-published and he is a dedicated self-publicist.

For example, it is well known that he is a militant animal rights proponent, but he is not discussed in sources on the subject, presumably because claims such as every time you put peat in your mouth you're eating cancer, are so crazy that nobody will reference them.

In short, a neutral biography of this man requires analytical independent sources of some weight, because otherwise it';s just a storefront (which, to be fair, sums up most of what he does). More tot he point, most of the sources are old and seem to refer ot the 15 minutes of fame when the PCC and ASA censured him. So in the end this looks like a WP:BLP1E or coatrack or.. something, but not in a good way. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. He clearly meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG regardless of the soundness of his claims and current state of the article. Since most of his work was pre-Internet it's not so easy to gsearch, but even still I found several sources in the first few pages of hits: According to this source he's "sold more than two million books in the UK alone", The Independent (arts and ents section, 1996), The Independent again, interview with Animal Liberation Front (eh), Lengthy review of Betrayal of Trust in The Ecologist vol 28 no 6 (Nov/Dec 1998), Several works reviewed in The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health (search results) (about as respected as journals get, I think -- now known as Perspectives on Public Health), The Independent again... Looks like while his books are self-published, they've received pretty considerable attention in respectable publications. I don't know that any would independently meet NBOOKS, but the combined coverage lends notability to the author, especially since he seems to be a rather controversial figure. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly notable. Has been a journalist, an activist who has influenced government policy, has written several books one of which has been turned into a film... Being a crackpot is not a valid criteria for deletion - we have articles on David Icke and Timecube, the crackiest of crackpots.--greenrd (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly notable irrespective of whether you consider him a crackpot. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep As an author if you make The Sunday Times Best Sellers list, I would determine you immediate meet WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG widely comes into play regarding controversy and criticisms regarding this person's work. The nomination almost entirely focuses on the nominator's bias and opinions of the subject's work. Wikipedia is not censored, not for original research, and not a soap box to suppress articles not in alignment with your views. In terms of actual policy based arguments, there's reference to WP:BLP1E which is a stretch by any attempt. The article is poorly sourced, needs considerable work, NPOV, and seems to have major gaps for some information. Those are all surmountable problems and well outside of notability issues. Mkdw^talk 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• Keep Using ASA/CAP to claim that he is a 'crackpot' is disingenuous. ASA/CAP are literally an advertising lobby. Funded by advertisers. https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and-cap/people/cap-panels-and-committees.html && https://www.asa.org.uk/about-asa-and-cap/about-regulation/our-funding.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.233.121 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

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

The result was Move to AfC. Article moved to Draft space on creator's request (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Artur Zurawski

Artur Zurawski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems promotional, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Willis (RAN officer)

Andrew Willis (RAN officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't believe that this person meets WP:SOLDIER. Although the MVO is not as common as being awarded an OBE for example I don't believe that the MVO makes him notable Gbawden (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see which WP:SOLDIER criteria this guy would meet. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Run of the mill, mid-ranking officer. The MVO is not nearly high enough for notability on its own. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is primarily the curriculum vitae of a middle-ranking officer. It says very little about his receipt of the MVO and it is unlikely anything more could be said. The article does not establish or claim any particular notability of the subject. Dolphin (t) 22:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. MVO is down the VO list. Not that high an award, and rank does help towards WP:SOLDIER either. Doesn't meet WP:GNG from what I can see. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books

Pop Fiction and Sizzle Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable imprint. No reliable sources listed, nothing obvious shown through a brief search for general webpages, news or books. Bjelleklang - talk 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - no indication of notability, and the article was apparently created to help collectors of the books "keep track of their collections"[14] - pretty much an admission of the fact that there are no secondary sources for the information. --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. Widr (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• delete Lack of substantial independent sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Very NN, nothing out there to be found and if the list (because it basically is one) is merely there to help track things then make a wiki over at Wikia, it's not content we want nor specifically need. tutterMouse (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I just started a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino films and TV series based on Wattpad stories - there appears to be a bit of a walled garden with articles about Wattpad authors and stories. --bonadea contributions talk 17:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Monique Parent

Monique Parent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non-notable sexy lady. damiens.rf 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Yes she is an actor but basic problem is we need in-depth write-ups from neutral reliable sources, not just listings that she was in such and such a film. I found a mention here but more is needed to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - It's always made me cringe that WP has specific policy for these folks (i.e. WP:PORNSTAR). I don't see which criteria she'd meet. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - @Damiens.rf: no one can ever beat this beauty [15] , Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG AadaamS (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Nooruddin (Dawoodi Bohra)

Nooruddin (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

mostly copy paste and person itself is unnotable. Does not have any secondary sources to verify notability. Summichum (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete There seems to be an awful lot of copy pasting here. Cut that away, and you then have all the information not related to the subject of the article. Cut that away, and what you're left with can't even be called a stub. Even a redirect wouldn't be appropriate because the name "Nooruddin" is so common in the Indian subcontinent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT: even if this person was a notable saint, the article is beyond repair. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite being listed for three weeks, there's no real consensus here. It looks like there are some reasonable suggestions for merging, but that can be worked out on the aritcle's talk page without the formal AfD process. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

List of cultural festivals in Indian colleges

List of cultural festivals in Indian colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe this list fails the notability requirement for lists described at WP:LISTN, namely "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Note that LISTN says "One accepted reason..." You always should explain why you think LISTN is the best way to analyze the list. And I don't think it's relevant here, because (I'm surprised to see that) we have many articles on these festivals. So this appears to be an index of notable topics satisfying WP:LISTPURP, complementary to Category:College festivals in India per WP:CLN. If we have enough articles of a certain type, then absent a compelling reason not to we're going to list them together (see also intro to WP:NOTDIR).

  As a side note, it looks like there's some confusing redundancy in the categorization, as Category:Culfests is presently a subcategory of Category:College festivals in India despite that being what a "Culfest" is, as explained at Cultural Festival (India) (where Culfest redirects). Which also means that Cultural Festival (India) is the proper parent article, which should be merged to this list (or this list merged there) given how short that article is. And then whatever category we end up with should be renamed to match that article title (or the article title renamed if the category title is better). It's also possible that we shouldn't have all these articles if the festivals are not all independently notable, but that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis prior to deleting this list or the category. Follow all that? ; ) postdlf (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the reason why it should be deleted, have you thought of redirect or merge? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment In response to @Postdlf:'s comments above, I failed to mention that as well as my quote from LISTN, I also brought this list to AFD because I believed that most of the festivals listed are not independently notable, based on a preliminary observation that there are far many more redlinks/nolinks than there are blue links. I have now done a survey of the contents of the list. By my count, there are currently 93 festivals listed and there are 32 blue links; 24 are stand-alone articles and 8 are links to a section in the relevant school's article. Of the 24 articles, 7 have no references at all (4 of them tagged, 3 not tagged), and 9 have insufficient references (3 of them tagged, the others my opinion based on links to blogs, the school's own website, etc.). That leaves only 8 articles with references to proper third party sources. I haven't looked at any of those references in further detail, but judging by some of the titles some may be little more than passing mention. In short, if all of these articles were put to AFD, I think the survival rate would be pretty low. However, it seems I have put the cart before the horse by nominating the list first. As for Bladesmulti's suggestion, it could be merged into the Cultural Festival (India) page that Postdlf has mentioned. Other issues would also have to be addressed such as what criteria would be required for addition to the list. Right now it appears to be a free-for-all. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see how you have researched. Merging to Cultural Festival (India) will work. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CSC. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Which part of WP:CSC are you referring to? There are three different criteria there. I think it fails the first, as even the bluelinks have veribility problems that I have described above, let alone the red links. Arguing for the second or third options could be awfully dangerous, bearing in mind that according to Higher education in India there are up to 33,000 colleges that could potentially be eligible for the list.

In fact, the final paragraph of WP:CSC - "Creation guide" lists—lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles—don't belong in the main namespace. - provides a reason for deletion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you are correct in your argument here that none of them is notable, then obviously #2. If you are wrong in your argument, then #1. I would have no issue with Merge other than if a lot of other stuff gets merged, then WP:TOOLONG may come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanjib Sarkar

Sanjib Sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Probable autobio of a musician, no reliable references provided, prod-blp tag removed by author. Sanjib Sarkar Music Director was A7/G11 speedied twice, current article was moved from that title. --Finngall ^talk 17:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom. Twice speedily deleted and latest delete tag removed by author. All the more so... Fylbecatulous talk 15:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to be lots of mentions, but none that meet our criteria as reliable sources -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sarah and Julia

Sarah and Julia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article may fail WP:GNG. None of the recorded songs have charted nor do they appear in an album from the artists. They only appeared in a national pre-selection for Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013 of which they did not win the pre-selection to represent their country. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - seems like they have released another music single after JESC. Seems like partly WP:GNG passes.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• Delete – Not notable whatsoever. If they get a page wouldn't every performer who's ever performed in a (J)ESC national selection get one too? Doesn't deserve an article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• This passes WP:GNG the only other input doesnt have a stance in guidelines but personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Their music video here has close to a million views. Possible source here, source here, mention here, source here, mention here, mention here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment The third source from Oikotimes is unreliable. Prior consensus at WikiProject Eurovision deemed them as unreliable, as anyone can register a profile on the website and publish "news" without sourcing their content. All the other sources only state that they took part in a pre-selection, of which they placed third, so they never got to represent their country at Junior Eurovision. Of the 12 notability points at WP:MUSICBIO, they partially meet the first, the remaining eleven criterion they fail. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 00:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. There is none of the in depth coverage needed for a standalone article. All the sources offered are just mentions or WP:ROUTINE. SpinningSpark 18:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - per routine or trivial coverage in sources and failing all other criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 01:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage that would make this not a case of BLP1E (the Eurovision contest). There's only one news mention of "'sarah and julia' eurovision" and "sarah and julia dutch duo" doesn't get anything that works, either. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

All-on-4

All-on-4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable treatment. Mentioned in the news a couple of times but nothing that seems to be reliable or objective. Article in its current form is highly promotional and fails WP:NPRODUCT along with WP:SIGCOV. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 04:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And why instead of deleting other people's work, can't you propose the improvement of the article? This is a very well known method. Google returns more than 500 thousand results on the exact term, Google news UK returns more than 2700 news/articles, and Google books return almost 5000 entries on the exact term, how can you say it is not notable?João Pimentel Ferreira 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

See WP:BURDEN. If you can improve it, please do so, instead of accusing me of being a person who deletes other people's work - unless you're the author of this article? Anyway, if I see improvements, please feel free to {{ping}} me and I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits for something is not an indication of notability; WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just random pages that happen to mention something. The links have more information. ekips39 05:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I was almost the author of the article, and you could have tagged it differently instead of proposing a deletion, that was only my concern. Some issues were added later on the article such as the "advantages" of the method. I already deleted that paragraph. I also deleted all mentions to trademarks or registered marks to avoid the article to be seen as propaganda. Google might not be a reference, but what about Google books with almost 5000 entries? And this term is not random, it refers specifically to this method. João Pimentel Ferreira 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep sources in reliable sources demonstrate sufficient notability. -- Scray (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll improve the sources. Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 12:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Now seems "better"

@Kikichugirl:

• I removed all the trademark issues.
• I removed all the sentences tagged as
• I removed the topic "advantages"
• I added independent and reliable sources. Pubmed, one of the main medical publishers in the world, has 39 entries for this treatment.

Thank you. João Pimentel Ferreira 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen mwadime

Stephen mwadime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails GNG - claim to fame is being the 20th most influential student in Kenya DOCUMENT★ERROR 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Students aren't notable generally. Shii (tock) 13:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Secretary of a local students' union. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Secret 1st Japan Tour

Secret 1st Japan Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The only sourcing here relates to individual shows/factoids; there is no general, in-depth discussion in reliable sources of the tour as a whole, as is required by WP:NTOUR--there are, actually, no reliable references in this article at all. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (announce) @ 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Gaon, 10 Asia News, and Sony Music are reliable sources for the tour. The tour happened, and it even if it was not as popular as major K-Pop groups, I would not dismiss the article and consider it for deletion. Mazic (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. This was a Japan tour, so was there any independent, significant coverage of it in Japan? That's what should really matter; the K-pop gossip news/PR-machine is hardly relevant. My gut tells me there was not, as the Zepp venues are pretty small and none of Secret's releases in Japan have sold particularly well. The Sony Music reference is the artist's own official website and as such is not independent coverage. The rest are typical K-media puffery. One of the sources is about one of the members becoming like a Korean Beyonce after losing weight - that is not serious journalism in any sense and isn't even real information, just (again) PR fluff. 10 Asia News is a site specifically designed to promote kpop - their interviews are fine but PR stuff is not reliable or independent. Unless there was significant (not a one-off announcement) coverage of this in Japan, this should be deleted. The tour can be mentioned in the main Secret article. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This is one of several articles made about Korean bands touring Japan for no apparent reason. Claim to notability seems nonexistent. Shii (tock) 13:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) theenjay36 23:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

DWBM-TV

DWBM-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Searching for the stuff on Google produces nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:NME. —theenjay36 (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc. Defunct station with little history, so a RD is more appropriate to the parent organization here. Nate • (chatter) 09:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you should consider any other recommendations than that. Mareco Broadcasting Network, Inc. is also nominated for deletion. —theenjay36 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. theenjay36 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Préity Üupala

Préity Üupala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Recreation of a Nickaang sockfarm article. Miss India international AP is not a major contest. Bit part actor with no significant roles in notable productions. Her producer credits are as associate producer on non notable video shorts (one of which has ~37 producers). She does not inherit notability from being in the same room as Jackie Chan. Moscow Horror film festival is a not major. She lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Previously deleted at Preity Uupala - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preity Uupala. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (express) @ 14:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete At this point in her career she has not achieved notability. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Eduardo Fonseca

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Eduardo Fonseca
• Articles for deletion/Eduardo Fonseca (2nd nomination)

Eduardo Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced BLP of a voice actor, the page is too old to be eligible for BLP prod. Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject, does not appear to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTORS. Last nomination closed as no consensus after no one participated except the nom. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage in reliable and indepndent sources to meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Eveliina K Liehu Ivanoff

Eveliina K Liehu Ivanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiographical page which doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines 331dot (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – no evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. C679 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as per above; no sign of anything suggesting she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:TOOSOON for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Botchi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bocchi (Japanese)
• Articles for deletion/Botchi

Botchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article makes absolutely no sense. It is a collection of various terms in Japanese that regard loneliness and is not actually any discussion of anything beyond a vague meaning of the words. Several of the sources cited are either not working or are not reliable sources, consisting of blogs and random word searches in a search engine. There was a previous AFD on this that came up as no consensus because of apparent confusion that this term is even remotely studied, which does not appear to be the case. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: As per nominator. I added a link to the old discussion for reference above (I hope that was OK). Note that the linked ja:WP page is a DAB which says basically that botchi is Internet slang for "loner". The article is a series of (somewhat incoherent) anecdotes about people eating in toilets and the like. I am sure such problems exist, but there is no evidence that this is "unique to Japan", so no reason to use a bit of Japanese slang as the subject title. A properly researched article (not a foreign language student essay) is conceivable, but would surely hardly benefit from anything here. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. This is basically WP:SYNTH and reads like a personal essay by the author. Shii (tock) 13:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Using the above logic, then the term "selfie" should also be deleted from Wikipedia. I don't think the term being used as slang is grounds for deletion, especially given the sociological implications of the terminology in Japanese society. 130.54.130.246 (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Previous discussion of deletion was overwhelmingly for keeping the article: (Redacted) 130.54.130.233 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. There were 3 Deletes, 2 Keeps, and me; I made a couple of comments, and think the article would be better deleted, so it is possible to claim that there was a slight leaning towards Keep, but that is all. Indeed selfie really adds nothing encyclopedic to human knowledge, but WP can be indulgent, and since this term is in use in English there is a reasonable expectation that it will be a fair reflection (ouch!) of the term and phenomenon. More below. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: botchi could certainly have an entry at Wiktionary, but it would need to get the origin and definition right, neither of which happens here. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. As before, the article is still a rambling essay pieced together from various snippets found on the web (i.e. WP:SYNTHESIS). --DAJF (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. (Sorry: I forgot that this time I did already vote 'delete') The article is about a Japanese slang term, ぼっち which means 'lone(r)'. Analysis:
• History: Could conceivably be the basis of an article about "The Loner Phenomenon in Japan", but not clear it is really any different from anywhere else. Remember that Japanese sources are desperately keen to remind themselves of the uniqueness of Japan.
• Opinions of academics: chitchat from someone who works in a university, of no consequence. It actually seems to contradict the above, because it claims that "they" (which people exactly) want to have friends, and ... "are scared of eating lunch alone."
• The rest is a random collection of word glosses
  • Botchi-meshi: loners eat alone
  • Comyu-shō: loners have communications problems, with glosses of "communication disorder" which we are told is different
  • Botchi-seki: there are places where loners can eat alone
  • Kodokushi (孤独死）: people dying alone. Totally unrelated
• In short, there is (almost) nothing here. en:WP is an encyclopedia in English, and should have titles in English, unless there is a very clear reason to do otherwise. Yes, writers of popular articles, and academics too sometimes like to show off, but WP is here to be accessible, not to show off. There is no reason to have an article entitled 'Botchi'. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  You shouldn't make a second delete !vote.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – per Imaginatorium this could plausibly be an entry in Wiktionary. There is also a place for essays on the history and usage of words, but it doesn't seem encyclopedic. An encyclopedic article should be able to survive renaming, and I don't think this one could. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Training Center

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Vrac's prod was removed by creator. Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: What mentions I can find don't get this unsourced article past WP:ORGDEPTH. Vrac (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: The article text is a close paraphrase of this page, probably close enough to be a WP:COPYVIO. Removing it would leave merely an Infobox. The article is basically just saying that the organisation has a training unit. In that are they any different from any firm in the world beyond an SME? The article makes no claim of notability, nor can I see one. Its subject matter is already covered adequately - and in original wording - at Biman_Bangladesh_Airlines#Subsidiaries. AllyD (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Lemon girl

Lemon girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

OK. Another clearly non-notable work of fiction that fails WP:BKCRIT is here because there's no suitable CSD tag. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I wish the author well, but this book just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. I can't find anything to show that it's ultimately notable enough to merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. The article does not indicate that this book is considered notable under WP:NBOOK. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nom and Metropolitan90; book doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. NickCT (talk) 11:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I was actually expecting something related to this - Thank god I didn't!, Joking aside clearly fails NBOOK. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - as above, self-published book, clear promotion type entry -Augustabreeze (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: A new self-published book. Aside from social media entries that have been created for the publication, I am seeing nothing that could indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Postcards from memory

Postcards from memory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It simply fails WP:BKCRIT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SupportThis article and And we remained are created by the same user. This, like it, also has no refs or links whatsoever and probably hasn't been published.Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per above. This just doesn't have any coverage in reliable sources to show that it passes NBOOK. Blog reviews and Amazon sales don't count towards notability here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. Bacchiad (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization

International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about an organization that has no 3rd party reference to assert significance. Mys_721tx (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep This is not an article of direct translation from Chinese, so that list of China-related deletion discussions is not correct in this way.

User:Mys 721tx, please provide the total same page or this article of this site in chinese, and at the same time please provide the total correct translation of the chinese Site you mentioned.

Please provide evidence by comparing that with this site, and then respond. Donny Young (talk | contribs) 21:32, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)

• Comment User:Donny Young, if you want to fix the problem User:Mys 721tx brought up, you need to find coverage of IESCO in an independent reliable source. See the general notability guideline. Mys 721tx, thanks for your prolific contributions; if you think your WP:Block was appropriate, defensible, and intended globally, you can mention that. However, Donny Young's contribs here on en:wikipedia don't seem to have any copyright problems. Do you have a WP:NOTPUNITIVE policy on zh:wikipedia? FourViolas (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think this article should be deleted on the ground of copyright problems either. The block I upheld is of copyright concern though.-Mys_721tx (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 14:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete gnews and gbooks has hardly any coverage. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Van mat

Van mat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not remotely a notable variation of car mat, and pretty much everything is a duplication of that article. An attempt at redirecting this last year was promptly reverted by the article's creator. Article is also completely unsourced, and, as such, is not a valid candidate for a merger. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Van mats are notable as they are mass produced and used by the millions over a century. The question is is it a different distinct topic from "car mat"? Perhaps both articles can be merged into vehicle mat? --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• The latter is probably a good idea. Van mats are notable, obviously, but I seriously doubt they're a notable variation of your regular vehicle mat. They are, after all, essentially exactly the same thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) @ 14:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would say merge with Car mat but with the above taken into account, merge the two into a new article called Vehicle mat. aycliffe^talk 10:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Sources would definitely have to be added for this article to be merged though, because right now, it is pure OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Also the images are pointless as they're listed at car mat and in the same order!.... Anyway see no point in Merging as there's nothing amazing about a van mat and anyone with sense would know that a van mat is more or less the same as a car mat..... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Needless duplicate of car mat that adds nothing. Nothing here worth merging. If anyone wants to boldly move car mat to automobile mat/vehicle mat/what-have-you and redirect this there, feel free to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Reworded, but essentially a duplicate article. (If only the user had made Van art, I could have gotten behind it while listening to Barracuda.) Pax 20:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) theenjay36 23:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Delta Broadcasting System, Inc.

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Delta Broadcasting System, Inc.
• Articles for deletion/Delta Broadcasting System, Inc. (2nd nomination)

Delta Broadcasting System, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources which would make it notable. The article does not cite anything but the subject's website which is a primary source, not a secondary one. The subject also fails WP:NME & WP:CORP. —theenjay36 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 14:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 112.198.83.234 (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator. theenjay36 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 06:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vacón

Vacón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Relatively new martial art with no indication of notability. Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE and the article's only source is a book written by the art's creator so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Only one source. Shii (tock) 19:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker^talk 01:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Women’s Health Co-Op

Women’s Health Co-Op (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems like a non-notable health organization or health campaign. If it is an organization, it seems to exist to promote its own health campaign.

Every source that I see about this campaign/organization seems published by those funded to manage the campaign. An author named "Wechsberg" founded the campaign, and authored most of the many sources cited in this article. Those sources were published as results reporting of their receiving grants, and are not third-party journalism.

The world is full of public health campaigns and I think in the case of this one, the campaign was given a name in grant applications but I see nothing remarkable about it as compared to any other public health intervention. I do not see how this meets WP:GNG because the sources available are published by the project's founder, and I do not see how this meets any other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Yup, promo page cited to its own people, no evidence of WP:N. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  04:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yakub (card game)

Yakub (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any reliable sources to prove the wp:Notability of this game. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 21:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources have been provided, and I haven't found any either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 05:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Kevin Smith . No argument made toward notability (yet), ATD prefers redirection and there was sufficient support for same. j⚛e decker^talk 00:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Moose Jaws

Moose Jaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, not yet shooting. Lacks support. reddogsix (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Redirect to Kevin Smith where per WP:SPECULATION this 2016 FILM might be mentioned per sources[16][17] as something he plans to shoot in 2015 for a 2016 release. TOO SOON for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Redirect per Michael. --–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Maxim Makukov

Maxim Makukov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This WP:FRINGEBLP is being sourced primarily to sensationalist tabloid stories of a "News of the Weird" variety. This is in defiance of our WP:NFRINGE guideline which states "Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season)." Further, the subject does not satisfy the WP:PROF level we would require for academic subjects. jps (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep for the following reasons:

• Contrary to JP's claim, news coverage of Makukov was not of the "April Fools Variety" but very serious. Makukov's peer reviewed article was published in the highly respectedIcarus. That article stirred up coverage both in the popular magazines covering science news (New Scientist, Discovery) and the general media (Huffington Post), which I cited in the stub I created for this article. Please read the articles used in the article from New Scientist, Discovery, and Huffington Post, before accepting the characterization that these articles treated this as an "April Fools Joke." I'll add more references here upon request.

• This article falls well within the subject of panspermia which already has extensive coverage in Wikipedia. Panspermia is not such a fringe idea that it can or should be removed, indeed it is widely discussed.

• I am very curious that JP nominated this for deletion within hours of my creating this stub article. Setting aside my curiosity of how in the world he is managing to police wikipedia for any attempt to create an article related to Makukov or panspermia to nominate it for deletion so quickly, it seems extremely premature to nominate an article for deletion before it has had at least a few months to develop. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to encourage development of articles with input from multiple editors bringing their own resources to the article. Suggesting the abortion of a nacscent article within hours of it's creation seems a bit premature.

• The "fringe theory" argument applies to articles about theories, not people. JP should restate his objection to be around the claim that Makukov is not a notable person. Given the coverage about him in the context of his work in the press, I think he qualifies as being notable. As I mentioned, it was covered many other places as well. The theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.

• As noted above, Makukov's theory fits well within the non-fringe, but certainly not widely endorsed, theory of panspermia. At an appropriate time, I would have no objection to seeing this material included in the article on panspermia if editors decided the material was more suitably presented under that topic than under a stub biography of Makukov.

• Finally, I think that there should be some respect for the contributions of other editors. My contribution was sincere, well sourced, and covers a researcher whose work received wide coverage in the media. As mentioned above, in the long term, his theory may end up being rejected, but Makukov has had his 15 minutes of fame and is notable at least for that success.

• Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Keeping the article has no cost. (Even if the nomination for deletion succeeds, the deleted article remains accessible on the servers.) I don't know what has motivated JP's desire to see this deleted so quickly, but I don't see how deletion advances any financial or educational purposes.

• Please let me know if you want to see a list of main stream publications which have covered this story in a serious fashion.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The only plausible claim to notability is that the man made a fringe theory claim that was picked-up by some breathless tabloid science journals as a "news-of-the-weird" variety. There isn't independent expert review of his idea because it is harebrained and essentially unworthy of commentary. Publishing in Icarus does not inoculate an idea from being fringe. Wait until the idea has received independent notice. Until then, it's just another crazy proposal of the many that we see come and go. jps (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately websites do not establish notability on their own. It looks some considerable time will be needed for this study (and its authors) to gain some serious attention. Because both the price tag of $35.95 and the remarks such as "Whatever the actual reason behind the decimal system in the code, it appears that it was invented outside the solar system already several billions years [sic] ago." [18] seem real obstacles. Once seeing the price tag of the paper, one might also wonder whether Godblessyou2 is Makukov or not. Logos (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not Makukov, or in any way associated with him, his colleagues, or his country. I just saw an interesting New Scientist article about his research and decided to start an article about it. As mentioned, the New Scientist article treated the subject seriously. It was not, an "April Fools" type article, but went into extensive detail about Rumer's transformations and symmetries of 37 which, I confess, I did not fully understand given my own limited knowledge of higher mathematics. The reason I'm interested is because I've always believed that we humans would be very likely to seed an experiment in bio-engineering of another planet, and are approaching the level of scientific knowledge to do so. So, that raises the question of how do we know if that hasn't already been done. It's not an unheard of theme in science fiction, and that is no doubt why Makukov's paper was widely covered in the media.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

In spite of the obvious appeal to creationists and "intelligent design" religionists, these types of pseudo-academic claims about bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen and not worthy of article-by-article treatment. New Scientist magazine is somewhat notorious for taking fringe claims and trumpeting them. We typically do not write articles in Wikipedia solely on the sensationalism found in New Scientist. jps (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the royal "we" (in "we typically do not...") presumes that you represent "we." More importantly, your claim that theories of "bioengineered terrestrial life are a dime-a-dozen" actually highlights that the theory is not so fringe if it is commonly being suggested by dozens of people. In fact, it underscores that what set this author and his work apart, and made it notable to New Scientist and others, is that it was not just another unsubstantiated speculation but is backed by extensive mathematical modeling of genetic code which was published in a highly regarded peer reviewed journal complete with all the authors' extravagent speculations. That makes this particular claimant notable, precisely because his speculation is not just a "dime-a-dozen" speculation but is extensively argued with a rigorous (even if ignorable and wrong . . . I take no position on the accuracy or truth of the paper) mathematical analysis which peer reviewers found sufficiently enough defended to be accepted for publication by Icarus. Finally, your opinion regarding New Scientist's alleged proclivity for trumpeting fringe claims is not adequate grounds for dismissing it as a reliable source per policy. It is a verifiable secondary source with fact checking. At least find some error in the article that justifies dismissing it. I realize that as a professional "astronomer and educator" you have strong feelings about protecting the public from "fringe" ideas, but authors and publications which receive notable coverage, even for theories you personally believe are totally nuts, are still supposed to be properly covered according to Wikipedia policy.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Panspermia itself is worthy of inclusion as an article. Individual WP:MADEUP ideas are not. There are all kinds of ideas being proposed and nothing new is under the sun. That does not justify an article in Wikipedia. It is further worth noting that publication of a single paper is not in-and-of-itself notable. I can point to many single papers that push bizarre ideas we don't discuss in Wikipedia. What makes an idea worthy of consideration for this website is when expert review happens of the idea. So far, the ideas of Makukov have not been cited by independent researchers. So, lacking a WP:CRYSTALBALL, it is irresponsible for us to wax eloquent about his ideas before they have been noticed by the experts in the subject (not the sensationalist tabloid press). New Scientist's problems are well-documented throughout the web. [19]. It is a shame that you were caught up in their base appeal to the lowest-common-intelligence denominator, but there you go. You should consider educating yourself on what the best sources for science stories actually are rather than frequenting the creationist pseudoscience sites you seem to pick up most of your facts from. jps (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your insults and personal attacks are a violation of the [[wp:civ|civility] due to other editors.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I've searched high and low and there's been absolutely no serious academic consideration given to this paper. Which is understandable as its conclusions are absurd. Maybe if in the future this guy becomes notable in fringe circles along the lines of other absurdities like ancient astronaut stuff then he may deserve an article. Right now he doesn't even have that. Capeo (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First, the paper is relatively new, so it may take some time for academic papers to develop around this paper, either for or against it.

Secondly, "academic consideration" is not the determining criteria. It is notable because of news coverage -- occurring both in science magazines like New Scientist and popular media, such as Huffington Post. These two publications, alone, are both reliable and notable. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia policy that requires a certain "count" of reliable sources necessary to warrant inclusion. The author's paper was published in a peer reviewed journal, was reported on in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, therefore he and his paper and hypothesis are notable. That does not mean his arguments are correct or will win widespread support, but it demonstrates that this is already notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article that, at the very least, gives interested readers an opportunity to find some of the sources discussing this person and his theory.—GodBlessYou2 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The HuffPo article cribs almost the same wording as the other throw away weird science articles such as Discovery News or ToI. Note many use the same "who designed the designer" line. Shall we have an article about the guy who took a picture of Bigfoot that is just above the HuffPo article? All these other articles stem from the NS article which is a publication that's been criticized for being both sensationalist and too credulous in the past. All that being said, none of the above makes this guy notable at all. There's hundreds of articles published like this in mass media every year and they amount to nothing. And there's thousands of papers published every year in journals and almost none of them are notable. This man is not notable as a scientist and, unless his hypothesis gets traction in fringe circles, he's not notable as a purveyor of fringe views.Capeo (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This doesn't even rise to the level of notable drivel. As others have said, he isn't even taken seriously by conspiracy theorists yet.--Adam in MO Talk 00:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of substantial SERIOUS coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Transient mention in news-of-the-weird type journalism does little to establish notability, and besides that, there is nothing in reliable sources that we can base an article on. This is just yet another nutter in a vast sea of nutters writing nutty things about nutty topics, and there is no evidence that this nutter is widely known, never mind discussed, even by his fellow nutters. The universe would run out of electrons if WP had a article on every nutter as insignificant as this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether or not the theory is notable, the person hasn't been shown to be. All the sources merely discuss the theory; and it's not even as if he's the main proponent of the theory, he's always one of two or three in the sources. --GRuban (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I suspect I cannot contribute to decisions on a wiki article about myself, but I would definitely prefer it to be deleted. Not because I am not a notable "nutter" (and, thankfully, I am not :-0 ), but because it has little, if any, relation to me or to my research. E.g., I have never been a proponent of panspermia. Vladimir is my colleague, not mentor, and he is not a mathematician. Also I wonder if there is really such a country as "Kazahastan", as well as how life might be distributed through the Universe by "meateors" and "comments" :-) This wiki article relies largely on opuses by mass media and pop-sci resources which heavily distorted the results. E.g., the phrase "an advanced alien civilization 'seeded' our galaxy eons ago with an ET signal that eventually found its way to Earth, implanting a genetic code into humans" is ingeniously surrealistic (and human-chauvinistic), but, unfortunately (or rather fortunately) has nothing to do with our results. The results themselves are certainly so harebrained, drivel and pseudoscientific, that a variety of peer-reviewed journals (including Icarus, Life Sciences in Space Research, Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, Journal of Theoretical Biology, BioSystems) were unable to resist publishing them (see, e.g. here, here, and here). Even worse than that, conspiracy theorists still haven't taken the result seriously! (maybe, because they are smart enough to see that there is nothing conspiratorial about it?). Cheers ;-) Maxim Makukov (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You may contribute, and as the subject your view will even be given extra weight in borderline cases. Normally if the article were merely poorly written, but the subject were encyclopedic, we'd just fix the problems, rather than delete the article; this is more of a discussion of whether we should have such an article at all. But here it looks like opinions, including yours, are clearly in favor of deletion, so I'm anticipating it to be gone within 7 days. (Also I liked your comment, see your talk page.) --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideas sink or swim in the congress of scientific ideas on the basis of expert review. I wish you nothing but success, Dr. Makukov. In the meantime, it is hardly Wikipedia's place to guess one way or another as to how your ideas will or will not be incorporated into our understanding of reality. I appreciate your candid evaluation of the (frankly) distorted and crazed coverage your ideas have received in the popsci press and apologize for any headaches this may have caused. jps (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, merge and redirect to Panspermia - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - I detest the creeping trend of people arguing that because something is patently absurd, the rules regarding notability and reliable sourcing go out the window. New Scientist may well cover 'whacky' things, but in the sense of a biography rather than a theory, that doesn't do much to change the subject's status re:WP:GNG or any other measure of notability. It remains a reliable secondary source, and extensive coverage isn't nullified by something being unassociated with reality.

Having said that, all the sources appear to be about the man's theories, rather than the man. Not only does that kind of make the BLP moot, but his theories certainly don't meet the criteria for fringe notability. Many others have made the same claims as he has. Alas, delete. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the references have focused on him or mentioned him twice, they have only provided his view as one of the many. VandVictory (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete lacks significant coverage for actual subject.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker^talk 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Portage County UFO chase

Portage County UFO chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominated after a discussion at WP:FTN. There does not seem to be a lot of independent sourcing that we would find necessary for a stand-alone article. Some of the details could be kept on list articles or in text on the article about Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but otherwise it seems that this particular UFO encounter simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Article is based entirely on fringe sources and a single very brief reference in a sensationalistic article in popular science, bolstered with a massive dose of original research. Frankly, none of the sources is reliable enough to confirm that this event occurred at all, never mind that it is notable. Nothing worth saving or merging. Belongs on some fringe UFO wiki someplace, but certainly not here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and merge a summary based on a reliable independent source to a list article of UFO sightings. The present article is unduly weighted with breathless detail by UFOlogists like Jerome Clark who tend to emphasize the sensational. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This entire rambling story appears to be sourced to Jerome Clark who is not, under any circumstances, RS. DOCUMENT★ERROR 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as per comments by Dominus Vobisdu Nickm57 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• This may be off tangent a bit, but I'm curious as to why Jerome Clark is listed as "not, under any cirucumstances" a reliable source. Certainly using a single source for an article is never a good idea - or appropriate for an encyclopedia article - but I haven't heard any specific details as to why he's not reliable. Has anyone actually read any of his books or examined the sources he uses? As for the claim that he emphasizes the sensational, the linked article doesn't sound all that sensational, as Clark at the end even writes "most supposed anomalies will eventually be explained in conventional terms, either as delusions or as misinterpreted mundane events, and a few will prove rather more interesting than that." That doesn't sound very "sensational", and the rest of his article is a rather non-sensational critique of some debunkers, not all of them (he does note that some skeptics are themselves critical of other skeptics, which also doesn't sound unreasonable or in error). Are there any specific reasons - that is, details or examples from his writings - that makes him unreliable? If so it's certainly understandable why he shouldn't be used as a source for ariticles, but I haven't seen any specific reasons listed. As for the Portage County UFO article itself, if it uses only one "ufologist" source, then no doubt it should be deleted, if not extensively rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

He's a ufologist. He's a regular guest on ufology podcasts and entertainment TV shows along with other ufologists. I'm always surprised people want to portray him as a journalist or a historian or a disinterested academic encyclopedia writer. As for sensationalism, co-authoring books with Loren Coleman about "creatures of the outer edge" isn't sensational? - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's because some people have actually read his books and find them to be largely what you described. Yes, he writes about UFOs, but I fail to see how that automatically makes him an unreliable source. The link you provided only states that he writes about UFOs, which, the last time I checked, was not an automatic sign that someone is unreliable, particularly given that no one has yet stated that they've actually read any of his books or articles, and thus don't really know what he says about particular cases or events. As for the book he co-wrote with Coleman, what does he actually write about the "creatures from the outer edge?" Does he say they're real, or does he simply describe them as folk tales and urban legends, and even debunk some of the sightings himself? What sources are used in the book? There is a real difference there. If being a ufologist (UFO researcher) is automatic disqualification as a source, then UFO skeptics like Philip Klass also couldn't be used as reliable sources, nor could people like Dr. J. Allen Hynek, a ufologist who also happened to be the Chair of Astronomy at Northwestern University and a scientific consultant to Project Sign, Project Grudge, and Project Blue Book for over two decades. What I find curious is the clear assumption that anyone who writes about UFOs (a "ufologist") is automatically an unreliable source, without anyone apparently having read their material to determine that they are, in fact, unreliable. I happen to have read Clark's books, as well as those of other "ufologists", and all of the books by skeptics like Klass, Menzel, Shaeffer, Peebles, etc. and Clark strikes me as being many cuts above UFO "true believers" like Art Bell, Ray Stanford, Richard Hall, etc. In none of his articles that I have read does he claim that UFOs are ships from outer space or that little green men are visiting the Earth, and in fact Clark debunks a number of UFO cases in his books, such as the 1896 Aurora, TX case (which turned out to be a hoax from a local liar's club). He does argue that some UFO cases are unsolved or unexplained, but that's very different from claiming they're of alien origin, which appears to be the standard here for determining someone is an unreliable source. I certainly don't agree with everything he writes, but that's true of a great many books I've read, including those that have nothing to do with the paranormal, and I don't discount the reliability of those writers because I don't necessarily agree with their slant on something. I'm constantly amused by the assumption here, which I think is erroneous, that all UFO writers are the same, have the same perspectives, and therefore are all lumped in the "unreliable" category and dismissed as a credible source. There are certainly degrees of idiocy on this topic, as there are on all topics. I just don't get the impression that many people here have actually read any of his writings; they're just labeling him as unreliable based on guilt-by-association tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:691E:5A29:F0AA:B487:5800:D954 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. SpinningSpark 18:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Larry Holliday

Larry Holliday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Holliday has not competed internationally. He did not medal at senior Nationals. Though he has been successful at U.S. Adult Masters competition, the level is comparable to U.S. novice which is two levels below senior required by WP:NSKATE. Kirin13 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Larry Holliday made the Senior National Team in 1990. His 10th place finish at the National Championships that year qualified him to compete internationally on the Senior level in 1990 at Skate Canada International, where he placed 5th in the Interpretive event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The source you gave does not mention Skate Canada. Also looking through the Skate Canada articles, I don't see anywhere mentioned that he competed. Nothing in your comment shows that he met requirements of WP:NSKATE. Kirin13 (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Larry Holliday, 44, reclaimed a couple of things this year in the championship masters junior-senior men's event. Not only did he win gold for the first time since 2004, when the former senior-level competitor and 1990 Team USA member became the first to successfully land a triple jump at the U.S. Adult Championships. Icenetwork news article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)
  • U.S. adult junior-senior is on the level of U.S. novice which is two levels below senior required by WP:NSKATE. Kirin13 (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article states that he competed in 1990 for Team USA as a Senior level skater, and the event was Skate Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nowhere does the article mention Skate Canada and making the national team does not meet WP:NSKATE. You must either win senior nationals or compete in major international event or win a minor international competition. Kirin13 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Larry told me that he started skating at age 12, after watching Dorothy Hamill skate in the Olympics when he was 11-years-old. His proudest moment in competition history was when he made the national team in 1990 as a senior and "competed against the best in the world." Lifeskate article April 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 06:34, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Still nothing. Kirin13 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Larry Holliday did compete in a major International event at Skate Canada 1990 as a senior level skater. I will look for more sources. US Figure Skating in Colorado Springs can verify this. I will contact them as well. Frankkymd (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have a conflict of interest? Your entire editing history seems to revolve around this one skater. Kirin13 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No conflict of interest, but I am trying to clear up the matter in a timely fashion. US Figure Skating has his results from 1990 Skate Canada International that can be verified. Also there was major television publicity in Canada when he competed. The fourth reference clearly shows him competing at the Senior level Grand Prix event, Skate Canada. Frankkymd (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The bing video can't be used as a source per WP:YT and WP:VIDEOREF. Even if he competed at Skate Canada, he did not compete in the Grand Prix event, he competed in a side event of interpretive skating which has never been part of the Grand Prix and isn't recognized by WP:NSKATE. Kirin13 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Frankkymd: In response to "No conflict of interest": You have over 200 edits to the Larry Holliday article spanning three years. Outside of that you have less than a dozen edits – and even those all relate to Larry Holliday. Your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote Holliday – see WP:SPA. You're the only registered user to have added information to this article. I have a hard time believing that you have no relation to Holliday. Kirin13 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kirin13 there is no relation, and all of my edits have been fact based, taken from the many articles on his career. Nowhere in my edits do you find a personal opinion. I do appreciate your concern and your willingness to help out, it has been a learning experience. One question....you said Larry did not compete internationally in an earlier comment and later when you found out that he did, you made another comment that the international event was just a side event. Was that a contradiction on your part? Frankkymd (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Frankkymd When you presented evidence that he did compete at an international competition (even though the evidence is not from a WP:RS, thus cannot be included in the article until a RS is found), I evaluated that. From the evidence presented, he did not compete in the men's singles discipline but in men's interpretive skating. Interpretive skating has never been part of the Grand Prix and competing in it, will not qualify him for notability under WP:NSKATE.
If you have no relation to Holliday, why the singular and prolonged (three years of editing one article) interest in him?
Kirin13 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kirin13 No relation. It's fun focusing on something good. If the rules here tell me that I have to focus on many topics, I will do that, but I have not been aware of that rule. However Larry is clearly notable under the GNG.Frankkymd (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep failing NSKATE (even if Holliday does, not actually clear that is the case) does not automatically make a skater non-notable. A person can still be notable under the GNG if their career has been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources. Considering someone wrote a full length biography about Holliday there would have to be pretty exceptional circumstances to say he's non-notable. But, what we actually find is many other RS covering him in varying degrees of detail. (The SI story alone would generally be sufficient to establish notability, for example.) Thus, he is clearly notable under the GNG; whether he meets NSKATE or not is irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @ThaddeusB: That "someone wrote a full length biography" was his mother and the book was self-published. That source shouldn't be used for any claims in the article. Kirin13 (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Well that would qualify as "exceptional circumstances" to discount that source then (there is no way I could have guessed someone named Norma Jean would be the mother of someone named Larry Holliday :)). It can be used in the article for basic biographical information per guidelines on primary sources, but you are right it does nothing for notability. However, I stand by the keep comment based on extensive Sports Illustrated (which is the gold standard in sports writing) article and the various other secondary sources available about Holliday. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @ThaddeusB: Perhaps the only thing notable about Holliday is that he had an SI article written on him, since nothing in the SI article shows any notability. Given that nothing else is notable, Holliday's article should clearly focus on the fact he had an SI article written on him I'm not convinced it makes Holliday notable.
        This is a skater whose highest placement at Nationals was 10th (NSKATE requires 1st) and that was once – the rest of time he placed worse. He may have competed once in an international tournament (though a WP:RS has yet to be found for that), but even that tournament result would not qualify him for notability under NSKATE. Compare that to a more recent skater, Braden Overett. A quick look up tells that Overett placed 10th at Nationals three times (2003, 2005, 2007), and once he managed to place 7th (2004). Also, he competed internationally at least three times. Yet, Overett is not notable by Wikipedia standards, even though his results are better than Holliday's.
        Adult Nationals' results don't make someone notable. I was being generous comparing Adult Nationals to novice level (I was comparing the Adults' free skate scores to the novices' short program scores; novices' free skate scores are significantly higher than adults' scores) – when you actually compare free skate scores and moves executed, it's more similar to juvenile (the lowest of five levels competed at U.S. Nationals). NSKATE requires winning at highest national level (or compete at ISU Championships, compete at Grand Prix, or win other senior international). The references that cover Adult Nationals are by U.S. Figure Skating (official websites usfsa.org & usfigureskating.org and they also own and publish Ice Network & Skating magazine) – the organization that runs and sponsors the event. (Btw, USFS accounts for 27 out of 47 refs in Holliday's article [some refs are identical so actual number of refs is less].) USFS also covers juvenile results – doesn't make those notable. Holliday has not competed in adult internationals (those exist), so his 'fame' extends only to the small world of U.S. competitive adult skating.
        So obviously, Holliday's notability doesn't come from his skating results – so where does it come from? I considered that he might be the first successful African-American skater, but that proved false (Debi Thomas came before him, winning Worlds in 1986 plus two more Worlds medals and an Olympic medal). All I found was that he was good at self promotion. The SI article even talks about it – how he and his team got various Chicago news sources to pickup his story – then a Chicago journalist wrote the SI article.
        So looking at the sources: (a) 27 USFS sources, (b) 1 is Wikipedia sourcing itself, (c) 5 are pages from self-published biography written by Holliday's mother, (d) 1 ice arena website, (e) 13 other articles (though two are repeats) = 47 references. (a) consists of 10 refs which are competition results (and I've found 10 such results for a novice skater before, so this is not significant) and 17 refs which are actually only 9 distinct articles (1 of which is dead link, some just mention his name), all about adult skating. Another words, all 27 refs are about the least notable part of skating career. I hope I don't have to explain the issues with (b) or (c). (d) is nothing worth mentioning – it works for what it's being used for but having name listed on list of coaches at an arena is not significant. So really anything notable is (e). Two are repeats, which leaves 11 articles. One article is from a skating site (which also covers novice skaters) is about his adult skating. One article is from about.com about adult skating which mentions Holliday (about.com also has entire articles on novice skaters). Two articles from Chicago about a local ice show (one of which doesn't even mention Holliday). One link is a website that doesn't look to meet WP:RS but claims to have an abstract of a boy scouts' article. So what's left is 6 articles on his 'early' skating. Four of which are local Chicago articles (one barely mentions him), one is the SI article written by a Chicago journalist (which talks about Holliday self promoting), and one USA Today article which is not available online.
        So really, his entire notability is having an SI article be written on him. None of the refs about his later career are significant sources. Of the six on his 'early' career, there is four local, one offline, and the SI article. Might as well have the lead be "Larry Holliday is an American figure skater who once had a Sports Illustrated article written on him." since it's the only notable thing about him.
        As far as the current state of the Wikipedia article, it needs some cleanup. It was written by a single person whose singular interest on Wikipedia is promoting Holliday (see above). Though things look referenced, I've already noticed many things off by comparing statements to what is actually written in the sources. The fact other BLP articles are poorly referenced doesn't make this person notable (just says there has been one dedicated user). Some things, e.g. those sourced by the biography written by Holliday's mother, need better references. Three out of four sections of the article are about his adult skating career – which is much less notable than his non-notable 'early skating career'. I don't see Larry Holliday as notable, but if Wikipedia sees him as such, then his article needs work.
        Kirin13 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Notability is primarily defined by significant coverage in reliable sources, not accomplishments. The accomplishment based guidelines, such as NSKATE, are useful proxies, but it is the coverage or lack thereof that determines notability. And Holliday appears to have received significant RS coverage in the early 1990s when he was thought to have Olympic potential. This is evidenced by the SI article, the USA Today article (not being online is irrelevant), and no doubt many others - people are not normally covered by such major publications and ignored by lesser ones. This is simple an example of early 1990s sources have poor coverage online. (The period between 1960 and 2000 is very poorly covered online, because of the combination of material still being copyrighted and there not being enough interest to warrant spending the funds necessary to scan the material for a pay service.) here is another example of such coverage. Yah, I know its a magazine for kids (that doesn't make it unreliable, incidentally), but that kind of illustrates my point. If there was enough interest for kids publication to cover him in depth, there obviously are other adult publications that covered him besides the two already used (USA Today+SI). But even if there weren't, those two alone would be sufficient to establish notability. As to the article needing work, that isn't the purpose of AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Good to know. Since figure skating popularity in US has plummeted significantly since early 1990s, skaters have to accomplish 10x as much as Holliday did in order to get half the coverage. So really US skaters from pre-Internet age are at an advantage compared to today's skaters. Since Holliday didn't have any significant results, his article is more of a sign of the times. Also, it's his self-promotion (since some better figure skaters did not get his amount of coverage) – that's really the area he did have major success in. As far as the USA Today article, my question on it was not so much whether it's online or not, but the contents and length of it. There is no way to tell whether it was a three-sentence blurb or a full out profile like the SI article. Also, from looking over the wiki article, the editor has no problem adding info with a ref but the info not being in the ref. Even above, he gave me three reference that supposable had to do with Skate Canada but never mentioned the competition. That issue is however irrelevant for this page. Due to the editor misleading on sources however, I no longer trust any sources he gives me without being able to verify. I assume, in good faith, it exists, but, from previous experience, I doubt it has all the info he uses it for. As far as the issue with the article, that's more directed to EoRdE6 than you. But since I didn't feel like making two responses, I combined them and pointed him to it. Kirin13 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with User:ThaddeusB's rationale, and think the article is more than well sourced compared to many other severely lacking BLP's around here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @EoRdE6: Please read my newest reply to ThaddeusB above (same timestamp). Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kirin13: Don't worry I have been reading them all. Some very good reasons on both sides but for the time being my vote will remain. I'll keep this on my watchlist and see how it goes. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@kirin13 Nowhere in the articles does it say Larry Holliday promoted himself. You state that he and his team did this, and I find no mention of Larry doing that. Also you misquoted the SI article when you said Larry was the first successful African American, and claimed this to be a lie. The article states that Larry is the first successful African American skater since Debi Thomas and that is a fact. You are changing the story to suit your own needs. Also when you claimed that he never competed internationally and after evidence was presented you changed your story again.Frankkymd (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kirin13 And Larry Holliday must have competed in Skate Canada per this article from The Lethbridge Herald Oct. 24, 1990 covering the event. In the sports section at the end of the first column on page 9 his name is listed as a competitor from the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Frankkymd (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

1)Yes, I'm sure Holliday was physically forced to give interviews and photos. And I'm sure his mother wrote the biography completely against his will and he was extremely upset with it. – Or he was a willing participant.
2) No where did I state that SI article claimed he was the first African American. Don't accuse me of making things up when you're making things up.
3) When there was no evidence of him competing internationally, I stated he hadn't. When evidence was provided, I concurred, but said that a WP:RS is necessary to include it in the article. This is in line with Wikipedia policy WP:V. What's your problem?
4) Great. Even better would be a source after the competition that says he competed and his results. Skaters withdraw from competitions all the time, so an article before the competion is not worth as much as one after. Though given the copyright violating YouTube video, it's fair to say he competed, but a WP:RS is still necessary.
Kirin13 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kirin13 Here is your quote,"I considered that he might be the first successful African-American skater, but that proved false (Debi Thomas came before him, winning Worlds in 1986". Why would you consider that when the article in Sports Illustrated says otherwise. That should not have been a consideration. Please read the sources thoroughly before responding. And the results page is here in the Lethbridge Herald showing his placement at Skate Canada, the International competition that he competed in. Lethbridge Herald Oct. 26, 1990 page 1 sports section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkymd (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

1) I would consider something because I don't memorize articles on Holliday but I'm familiar with skating – a sport that with a reputation to be for 'white girls'. You gave that source to state he competed in Skate Canada. Ctrl-f said that it was false. If you're going to attack me for not memorizing sources, then you should actually read your sources to ensure they have the material you claim they do (unlike the first three you gave here & similar false refs on Holliday's article). 2) Congrats, you can use that as a RS for him competing at the 1990 Skate Canada in men's interpretive event (and as I stated above, that is not a GP event). Kirin13 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kirin13 Wikipedia needs people like you for input into cleaning up the articles and finding errors. So would you check Tammy Gambill's article since you have edited all of her students on her page. The students all seem to fit a criteria for NSKATE perfectly. Did you notice that? Did Tammy have a hand in setting the criteria? The criteria includes skaters from 1995 to the present competing in the Grand Prix series Internationals, and excludes skaters from 1994 on down. The International events from 1994 on down, were no less important just because they were not a part of the Grand Prix series. The United States sent them to represent the country, just as they do today. Also her claim of making the Nationals has no reference at all. No results page, no newspaper story, nothing.Frankkymd (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Larry Holliday's story was published in magazines, newspapers, television, etc....and has been seen, read, and heard by people all over the world. That establishes his notability, which is another standard of Wikipedia.Frankkymd (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And for information purposes look at Atoy Wilson he would not have a profile on Wikipedia if it were for Nskate criteria only, but we clearly see why his profile is on Wikipedia.Frankkymd (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tammy Gambill article was created after her students, so not sure how she created the criteria. In fact she has many more students who don't qualify under WP:NSKATE and don't have articles. The list just includes the students that do. (As do lists for other coaches.) She started coached in the 1990's, so yeah, her list includes skaters form 1990's to the present. Her making nationals is sourced. (A source doesn't have to be from 20 years ago, a recent source stating accomplishments is still a source.) What's the problem?
Grand Prix events are invitational, where only top skaters get invites. Non-GP events (and non ISU championship) don't have as strict requirements, thus NSKATE requiring a gold. This has nothing to do with Holliday since interpretive skating has never been in the GP. So what are you arguing here for?
Wilson fails NSKATE and it can be questioned on whether he should have an article. The article is barely sourced – both sources just include a small blurb on him, which does not meet WP:GNG. His claim to notability is being first African American to make nationals. What's Holliday's?
Kirin13 (talk) 08:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"The existence of many figure skating related articles have resulted in many stub articles. The following are guidelines created by WikiProject Figure Skating to help asses the notability of articles. They are a draft version, feel free to discuss them on the project talk page.

These guidelines are meant to act as a specific supplement to the overall policy of Wikipedia:Notability relating to figure skating-related biographies and organizations, and not to supersede them". He was the first to land a triple jump at the Adult National Championships and that was well sourced.Frankkymd (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"first to land a triple jump at the Adult National Championships" has never had any significant coverage and would not meet any notability requirements. You should stick to SI & USA Today articles if you're trying to meet WP:GNG, which means his earlier competitive career. Holliday hasn't done anything special – he's a national-level skater who decided to skate in adult competitions while other national- & international-level skaters went to compete and land triples at professional competitions and shows. It's a joke to compare adult competitions to professional & amateur competitions.
As far as the WP:NSKATE, the discussions were that it's too lenanient, not too harsh. So you're not going to catch a break with it.
Kirin13 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

References

• Keep. May not have met WP:NSKATE but has WP:GNG with enough reliable sources.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  20:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Landing a triple jump at the age of 50 is no small feat, (don't be surprised if Sports Illustrated has another feature on the guy in the future as being the first to land it at the Adult Nationals:)) competitors at the Olympics routinely fall on the jump and he is still landing them....Not a joke at all! Check again on your comment about the adult nationals being a joke comparing them to Olympics or the standard track Nationals. I never compared the event to that. However any skater who is routinely landing triple jumps at the age of 50 must be extremely special. At 30, Tara Lipinski does not do them. Sarah Hughes does not do them. Brian Boitano struggles with them, Braden Overett falls on them, and Dorothy Hamill never could do them! @Kirin13 Your comment about the sport being considered for white girls, says it all right there. That is probably why he received all of the attention! Just think about how difficult that must have been staying in a sport while people around him continued to mock him. That is called trying to make a difference for the better. And again, Larry was an International level competitor as evidence supports this with the earlier reference. Why must you continue to say that he was not. Thank you very much. Frankkymd (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You seriously comparing him to Olympic skaters? Olympic skaters do six types of triple jumps and quads. Holliday is doing the simplest two types of triples. Olympic skaters do 8-10 triples/quads per free skate. Holliday does 0-2 triple per free skate. Olympic skaters fall, most often on those quads that Holliday doesn't do, but they succeed on the 7+ triples/quads per free skate. Are you telling me Holliday never falls during his programs? Then what were the deductions for? To compare Holliday doing a triple or two to Olympic skaters doing a quad or two is quite a comparison you have there.
Plenty of national and international skaters do triples past their amateur retirement. Brian Orser did a triple axel when he was forty – a jump so hard that there has only been a handful of women to ever land one and many men struggle with it. (btw, has Holliday ever even done one?) Jason Brown (who out of US men has been doing the best this season) was already competing at senior nationals (and placing higher than Holliday ever did) before adding the triple axel to his programs. Easier triples, like the kind Holliday does, kids do them at age 10 and professional skaters continue to land them well past their prime. Most skaters choose to retire from skating and thus no longer jump, but those who continue to skate, can still land those jumps. E.g. Scott Hamilton, Kurt Browning, etc. For a 49 year old (age Holliday was at last adult nationals) to land two triples (under rotated, thus not full triples) is impressive but nothing new, notable, or 'unique'. (Just like winning US Nationals at novice level is impressive, but still not notable.) Good luck on getting that new SI article.
As for your new argument of him being notable for being black, the only article I recall mentioning it is the SI article. And even above, you argued against it being a reason for his notability. Since he was not the first nor the most successful, I'm not sure which route you're trying to argue.
Holliday competed internationally once in a discipline not recognized by the ISU. A discipline so not recognized, there is no Wikipedia article on it – interpretive skating. So, yeah he's an "international athlete in a discipline that no one knows about and hardly anyone ever competed in". In men's singles, he's never competed internationally, thus he's a former national-level skater.
Kirin13 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, just about everything you just said is completely wrong, and you have no references to back it up! NONE! Please include your sources! Adult figure skating is recognized by Wikipedia, so thanks for clearing up the fact that Wikipedia thinks it has some value. Or maybe you think that article should be deleted as well? This is getting a bit childish so I will let you argue alone, but you did have a few good comments. Unfortunately most of them were not only incorrect, they were hostile and uncalled for. Thank you.Frankkymd (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to List of Assassin's Creed characters#Arno Dorian. Speedy close/legit supervote because I think redirection to the character list to be uncontroversial and a full AfD to be unecessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Arno Dorian

Arno Dorian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is a seperate page needed for this? Can it not be included in the main Assasin's Creed wiki? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Assassin's Creed. Submitter might also wish to AfD Francois De la Serre (mentioned in the Arno Dorian article).--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Раціональне анархіст: I will do so if this one is deleted. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, but we continue to discuss Vamsi Paidipally--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Vamshi paidipally

Vamshi paidipally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP article contains single unreliable source(imdb) JacobiJonesJr (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, there is a very similar article about the same person at Vamsi Paidipally. Melcous (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I've AfD'd the other one. (My assumption is that the creator of the new article was unaware of the much older one.) I don't think we should decide against this unless we're going to also simul-nuke the existing linked articles of the director's films for also failing notability -- which they appear to have plenty of. The question, then, is which is the correct spelling? Pax 03:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I've recently merged any useful info from this article under consideration here over to the Vamsi Paidipally article. We can can likely safely get rid of this article here now. Guy1890 (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 02:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Marsh Mokhtari

Marsh Mokhtari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Mokhtari Stats)

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

Promotional article, it lacks notability. It was extended by a banned sock[20], despite it was still a IMDB spam. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Who was the creator? A fan? Or person himself? Bladesmulti (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Hosting shows on Food Network and NatGeo should establish notability, even without the other shows he's hosted and acted in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your analysis of these shows and contributions is probably correct. I would rather withdraw now and request suppression of every version(except mine ones) before this change. They had ripped off IMDB.[21] Bladesmulti (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

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