Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 January 9 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that it's WP:OR to report these as reactions to the Paris shooting, and if they are found to be they should in the first instance be covered in the article about that.  Sandstein  11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Europe mosque attacks[edit]

2015 Europe mosque attacks (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 based in WP:OR, connecting different events in a way that results in synthesis. Doesn't meet WP:EVENT criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 22:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these should be part of the Charlie Hebdo shooting article, as Aftermath or something - definitely not standalone, and as it's so short and IMO an unlikely search title, deletion is the best option here. ansh666 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These attacks are two separate things and should not be lumped together in one article. There are the arsons (described by the BBC here). The second event was the reaction to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, and that info can be put in the article on the shooting itself. -- Calidum 23:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Super Goku V (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable for an article by itself, should be merged into reactions to the Charlie_Hebdo_shooting ensuring appropriate weight is given. CaptRik (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If all the Charlie Hebdo stuff were being centralized in one article, I'd probably support a merge, but as it seems to be spawning a bunch of narrow sub-articles and the sources are well present, an article on Islamophobic reprisal seems warranted, including but not limited to these attacks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks to be a bit much recentism and not very well written. It can probably be expanded to a full article as well as include other forms of islamophobic attacks triggered by the shooting. For now I would recommend merging into the main article, expand there and later on spin out to it's own article. // Liftarn (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Grouping of unrelated phenomena (the Swedish ones started in December 2014). I have removed some completely unrelated incidents from the page. Article seems to be driven by persecution complex, these disparate and uninvestigated incidents are grossly not notable in comparison to 3 million marching for unity. '''tAD''' (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Any which are related to the Charlie Hebdo shooting can be mentioned there, but merging would require that there be something of substance in this article to be worth merging. This article only says the events happened, and the shooting article already says that. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: So just because these events were not given enough attention by media, that doesn't mean they never happened. 3 Million is just a number, sir! freedom of expression is a right just as much as life safety and freedom of religion (Many people would have been killed inside those mosques) — Preceding unsigned comment added by At oussama (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are uninvestigated incidents, nobody knows if there was malicious causes. I assume bad faith as the original creator added incidents in Sweden which happened last year, and tried to lump them in. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Juno (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Cryptic per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Vallis[edit]

Cole Vallis (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)

Currently non-notable WP:NACTOR, minor roles. Possible WP:AUTOBIO or other form of WP:COI. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close The author requested deletion and the article has been deleted. SilverserenC 00:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Hobbits. Courcelles 02:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elanor Gardner[edit]

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

Prod was rejected with no reason given so moving to AFD.

This character is not notable, very minor character who appears in a few sentences of the Lord of the Rings, there's no attempt to discuss the importance of the character, or the Impact she's had outside the work. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 06:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this vote was originally a redir to Samwise Gamgee. Google News archive or Google Books do not establish notability of this character IRL AadaamS (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are dozens of crufty articles under the Middle-earth project that should be either merged into lists or deleted, I'm hoping if we get enough input on this afd that a consensus can be built and I can start moving stuff without the usual whataboutery GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi GimliDotNet, perhaps this shall be the hour where we smite unworthy articles together. AadaamS (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi GimliDotNet and AadaamS, as a girl called Elanor (and LOTR fan), I don't see why this article is unworthy? Why the need to delete it? It is of interest, even if not to anyone but me, and I would say that the advantage of wikipedia over any printed encyclopedia is that it can contain articles on almost everything, whether it has made impact or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.5.112 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to suggest a merge to List of Hobbits because the subject isn't notable enough to deserve a standalone article according to WP:GNG. Still, for EG to be included in that article anything writen must be WP:V verifiable. AadaamS (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Hobbits. Makes the most sense as she only has a few lines about her here and there in LOTR. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Hobbits. Not notable enough IRL to merit a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Clearly there is no consensus for deletion. I'm not sure that I see a consensus for the solution of redirecting to one person and mentioning the other in a hatnote, but this can be editorially resolved through talk page discussion.  Sandstein  11:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Obama[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sarah Obama (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 curious disambiguation page, as both entries are redirects to the same page. I feel like this would be better suited as a redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Index because I believe that it would help navigation by making it a redirect (one less click). In addition, since it would be redirected to the index section, users can see that there are two Sarahs there and choose which one (or both!!) that they would want to read about. Also, there is a case for redundancy that could be made because the index section would effectively do the same thing as this page. However, since my bold redirect to that page has been contested, so I am taking it to AfD to get a consensus on this matter at the suggestion of User:Boleyn.Tavix |  Talk  19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems like there is a rough consensus below to redirect this to Family of Barack Obama#Sarah Onyango Obama with a hatnote there to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama). I am completely in favor of this proposal and would like to replace my original comments about redirecting to the index with this proposal. Tavix |  Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 1: "Sarah Obama" has been nominated for deletion before, with a result to merge to Obama family. However, this was as an article and not as a disambiguation.
  • Note 2: I am advocating for a redirect position. While this isn't a deletion in its purest sense, a result in a "redirect" would, effectively, be deleting the disambiguation. Therefore, I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum for this, but I feel like it is the most effective and relevant place for this (WP:IAR?). Tavix |  Talk  19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Both redirects go to different sections of the same page. A reader clicking on them wouldn't even necessarily be aware that they are in the same article, as they are taken directly to the relevant section. A redirect could easily end up with readers seeing whichever Sarah Obama was first mentioned, and thinking this is the one they are looking up. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the reasons for speedy keeping apply to this nomination. Please see WP:SPEEDYKEEP for more information. Tavix |  Talk  20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are taken to the index, it clearly shows at that section that there are two Sarah Obamas. By clicking on each Sarah in that index, people can be taken to the Aunt or the Grandmother. It does the same thing as this disambiguation. I'm not understanding your "same article" point, as that applies with my proposal and the way it is now. Tavix |  Talk  20:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit odd, but keep, as it makes it clearer there are two people. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yup it's all weird but despite both linking to the same article, They're 2 different people so may aswell Keep it. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect dabs are for multiple articles, not the same one. MOSDAB "are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics", "find the specific article", "because the basic purpose of disambiguation is to refer users to other Wikipedia pages" (emphasis own). Target can disambiguate. Widefox; talk 00:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked for cleanup. This appears to me to be a gratuitous use of a dab, and fails WP:TWODABS / WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article.". The PT is (a redirect to) Family of Barack Obama. Additionally, as they are non-notable people (per WP:NOTINHERITED), I thought it was quite usual to not list non-notable BLPs on dabs anyhow (a minor point). Widefox; talk 00:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Widefox, both entries are valid per MOS:DABMENTION; as both entires are valid and neither is a primary, there is no possible cleanup to do. The only options with changing the dab are to keep it as it is or redirect it to the page (which this dscussion will decide). I'll remove the clean-up tag because there really is nothing that can be done other than duplicate this discussion, but of course, if you strongly disagree, you can rv. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One entry is valid per MOS:DABMENTION. That topic is Family of Barack Obama. Therefore it is primary. We know which article the reader wants. It's that simple. Taking a related (but not identical) example of a company - we never list the same article twice if it had changed its name but had the same initials (which is very common), we just include both names on the same entry, and the article can disambiguate.
MOS:DABMENTION "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink." Agree that based on the wording of DABMENTION, there would be two topics. There's still only one article, and the disambiguation of the two names can be done in that one article.
  • Comment I consider it needing a cleanup currently, as one valid topic is listed twice, but agree best to keep discussion here. I'll ping dab project, and any discussion about only listing an article once per dab page is best discussed there. Widefox; talk 09:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are two distinct persons. And DABMENTION specifically says topics, not articles. I could agree with a redirect to the index, but to be honest, I found the index as currently formatted very confusing. As it is, it is better to have direct links to each person from the dab. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable people with little chance they will be notable in future, so both links (all links on this dab) will always be to the same article, so this dab only gets in the way of always going to the same article. The logic of DABMENTION allowing multiple entries to the same article seems at odds with the definition of aiding readers find the article, and this logic should apply to all types, not just persons. If we really want DABMENTION to allow multiple entries to the same article, dabs can fill with examples such as initialisms to companies with changed names, alternative names etc. (although they may not be DABMENTIONs, but rather article names but the logic still applies). Disambiguating at the target section is common, and eliminates this redundant dab. Practically, Sarah Obama can redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Index or Family of Barack Obama#Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama) with a section redirect hatnote (the later already having a sentence to disambiguate)Widefox; talk 11:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DABMENTION is explicitly about subjects and topics NOT articles. This is the result of extensive discussion. It is unusual, but largely irrelevant that both subjects are treated in separate sections of the same article. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a corner case. As we can easily disambiguate in the article the dab just adds one click before getting to the article. Any dab just linking to the same article is generally a disservice, with one caveat - I agree with JHunterJ's comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Same_article_being_listed_more_than_once - a {{R with possibilities}} is something else. Both redirects here aren't, and they have no chance of being. Widefox; talk 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several article space links to Sarah Onyango Obama. While there are no article space links other than from disambiguation pages to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama), there is still a need for disambiguation. Redirecting Sarah Obama to the section Family of Barack Obama#Sarah Onyango Obama with a hatnote there to Sarah Obama (aunt of Barack Obama) might be better than a disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Widefox; talk 15:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I love this suggestion. I'll update my original comments to support this. Tavix |  Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. A redirect hatnote in that section (or per above) can be independent of it for clarity anyhow. Widefox; talk 11:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it still requires the reader to scan the list to locate the two Sarahs. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote doesn't. Widefox; talk 14:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There. Are sections on two different women, each of whom would have had a redirect from "Sarah Obama" if they were the only one. The reader is best served by this dab page.PamD 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Served better by adding an extra click (without the helpful context of the article to decide)? Widefox; talk 15:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely per WP:TWODABS. There are only two topic in the encyclopedia corresponding to the title; each is now mentioned in the other, so a disambiguation page is not required as a tool for navigation. bd2412 T 17:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • What, and people who look for the undisambiguated "Sarah Obama" are just SOL? Where does WP:TWODABS say to delete a base-name dab where there are two ambiguous topics for that name? older ≠ wiser 17:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pageview statistics indicate that a little over a thousand people looked for "Sarah Obama" in the last 90 days. The largest portion of these correspond with a spike in interest in late November coinciding with Sarah Onyango Obama, at 94 years of age, receiving an award from the United Nations for the work of an education foundation that she heads. A Google search for "Sarah Obama" returns information only about this elder Sarah Obama. The other "Sarah Obama" merely exists and does not appear to have any notability whatsoever outside of being part of the Obama family. Given these circumstances, I am very comfortable saying that Sarah Onyango Obama is actually the primary topic of this name in terms of reader interest and historic notability, and likely merits a freestanding article at this title, or redirected from this title. bd2412 T 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, an interesting update. On one hand she may be a redirect with possibilities (WP:BLP1E / WP:CORP dependent), on the gripping hand it's not written or tagged as such yet, but given this info I'm qualifying my !vote to redirect to her section and be done with a hatnote there. Widefox; talk 01:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was originally an article on this subject at this title ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Obama&oldid=225887724 this was the last version as it existed in 2008, before being merged to the "family of" article"). In the intervening six years, the subject has been covered more extensively, and has recently received an award from the UN. It may be that she received this award due to her family situation, but we don't know that one way or the other. bd2412 T 02:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion here would be to update her section in Family of Barack Obama to include the new findings and if/when it becomes apparent that her contributions are worthy of an article (and pass WP:NOTINHERIT), then an article could then be created. Tavix |  Talk  18:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez Shoeb ahmed[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a webhost in which to post one's own personal reflections on faith. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Should be soon deleted as it's a rambling essay of a person's religious beliefs with no indication of notability or importance. Cowlibob (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rajput clans of Jalandhar Division[edit]

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

Just useless. Several identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD, eg:

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is Rajput or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as Rajput." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Solomon7968 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another of a network of garbage created by same editor.
  • Comment And @Sitush, maybe you have forgot it, but I notice there is User:Sitush/sandbox3, which you wrote during the previous round of Afd debates. It can fit well in the title History of the Census of India (redlinked in your user page)and can explain well why the 1911 census was not reliable. Solomon7968 12:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've been hanging off moving that draft into mainspace because I want to get hold of a copy of the book I mention in the further reading section. I can only see snippets of it but the thing looks to be very useful. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Delete as per GNG. the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguinHangout 12:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. -- KTC (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Akhir Zamani[edit]

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

Per WP:N - an entirely Urdu-language book with no English reviews and of no likely interest to English readers. kashmiri TALK 10:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;Invalid Reason to Delete this Article This is not a valid reason to delete a article,that the Article is about a book which is written in Urdu language. Second thing this that this book also have a English-language review with the name of "The Spiritual Guides of Sarwari Qadiri Order" published by Sultan ul Faqr Publications registered, many other article in Wikipedia written on books which are in urdu or in other languages, few example are:

A have carefully read the whole article, this article has proper reliable published sources which are verifiable and proper book and website citations are given in article, a single user due to a Bias has not a right to decide the interest of all rest Wikipedian Readers

other thing that i have notice is that User:Kashmiri just attacking on all work done by User:Neyn due to some personal, religious or geographic Bias, or doing act of Vandalism Mrashid364 (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

The book is in Urdu-language as deliberately specified in the article. Various articles exist on Wikipedia based not only on Urdu books but books belonging to other languages as well. This is because Wikipedia holds encyclopedic content without any discrimination of language for anyone. This is part of the reason why Wikipedia.org is available in various languages as well check the left bottom bar on the main wiki page. Carefully read the article to find sources. Hence, there is no reason for the deletion of this article. Ayesha Nb (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

 Comment: Sorry, The books might well find their place on Urdu Wikipedia, however English Wikipedia contains only articles of relevance to English speakers. kashmiri TALK 18:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user User:Kashmiri is trying to limit the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia by placing false allegations. This is a very discriminatory act which limits "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" due to personal differences. Please take note that Wikipedia is not for the interest of one user. All kinds of books articles exist and many users contribute to one article. If Wikipedia has an already existing accepted article and only ONE specific user is having issues it just goes to show it is his own issue-psychological or sensitivity or unreasonable blaming. Also, it is very disappointing to see that users such as User:Kashmiri are making religious books an excuse for fun and play. This can cause for a religious offense for many Muslims and followers of Islamic Sufism. JugniSQ (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Come, then, and behead me for XfD. By the way, I sense an SPI... kashmiri TALK 13:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete There is next to nothing that would indicate any sort of notability for the book; it simply fails WP:GNG. In addition to that, three of the editors pushing for the article to be kept here only seem to edit articles where the fourth editor is having some trouble, and the creator of the article is a fifth also created around the same time and only editing the same exact articles. The fact that three of them were all created within two days of each other and only seem to support each other in discussions ought to be taken into account by the closer of all the various AfDs involved. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so acknowledged with the secrets of the unknown, good for you! However, Wikipedia itself is the best judge regarding these issues. Even if the editors you have pointed out, are somehow connected to each other, that does not justify the fact that you are so bent upon deleting this article. Punjabsind82 (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

:: WARNING

The books are quite notable and you can brush up your intelligence by checking out the references listed within and below the article. They are not even limited to any one particular website or even one book for that matter. The content has been there with proper references with books and websites on spiritualism as a whole and without any limitation to one source. So, at least be truthful about your claims as they are all false. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. As an editor stay focused on the article and contribute if it is your area of specialization. By accusing other editors you are proving nothing at all. I will only talk about myself and I will of course edit these articles after all this is my area of specialization. Quite honestly, only those editors connected or specialized in the teachings of Sufi saints and Tasawwuf and mysticism are the rightful editors of such articles. Clearly User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo do not belong to the field of mysticism, caste and school of thought but are trying to step into this as an arena of TEASING other users who contribute to authentic and rightful Wikipedia encyclopedic content. The role of editors is to contribute to articles and not to LIMIT content or HARASS other users. The LACK of knowledge regarding SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and Tasawwuf pours out of the comments given by both the usernames i.e. User:kashmiri and MezzoMezzo. Both the users have no specialization in the field of Spiritualism.

Also, User:kashmiri is a notable user in EDIT WARS especially after recent unnecessary edits for the article Gujjar. Your edit records show that you do not work to make the article better or work with editors to make article better by having a discussion on the talk page. All you know is placing objections and to revert other people’s contributions and efforts for your own interest. Of course debates are welcome but never for personal preferences. What you do is not discussion. It is an edit war.

Unfortunately, none of the arguments you come up with are substantial and cannot be justified. So, here is some advice, let Wikipedia be the judge and stop acting like you can control or violate Wikipedia as per your own interest.

Neyn (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC) (User blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrashid364 for more information.)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drawl) @ 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (and I've added a G11 tag); this is a product spam for a 2013 book. (See also.) Pax 02:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (Non-administrator closure.) --doncram 23:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oroville Fire Department (California)[edit]

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

No real usefull information and no valid citations. Zackmann08 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup Neither of the given reasons in the nomination for deletion are valid reasons to delete; they are reasons to cleanup. See Category:Fire departments in California for examples of other simlar articles, which can be used to improve the article. Gaff (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was hoping you could help me. I saw your comments regarding my nomination of Oroville Fire Department (California) for deletion. There is something I have never understood about the process and I was hoping you could help me understand. If I were to create a page for another fire department with the same level of effort as that page, it would surely be deleted in a matter of days. Why is it that pre-existing pages seem to get a pass? To be clear, I'm NOT arguing with your comments, just trying to understand. Thank you in advance! --Zackmann08 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Response: You are certainly allowed to disagree with me, as I am often wrong! It can be a philosophical debate sometimes as to whether or not to keep or delete. I am more inclined to keep neutral stubs written about neutral topics, not seeking to promote the next big thing (whether that is a new real-estate developer or the band three guys started, who plan to get big in Japan). The level of effort is not so important, if the topic is notable and the article can be cleaned up (WP:Potential). I was also in a good mood when I !voted keep and my uncle lives in Oroville (WP:COI? The age of the article is irrelevant, as you point out. I did not check the age of this article, until running it through a program to see if it might be new enough to get through a DYK. Cheers and thank you for your interest in Wikipedia! Gaff (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup @DocWatson42: did a great job cleaning it up. I withdraw my nomination and vote to keep it. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to split hairs, but most of the work put in, including added references, logo, and expanding the article was done by another editor... :) Gaff (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaff: WOW. Egg all over my face... This is what happens when you don't really look at the history... -_- --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. No worries! I could tell that was what happened and just thought it was funny to point out. Cheers! Gaff (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Va Sokthorn[edit]

Va Sokthorn (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 Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Mike V. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisan George[edit]

Bisan George (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 Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PHP YOYO[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is nowhere near notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia. This should be speedy deleted. Stesmo (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In use on one non-notable website. Jjamesryan (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuch kah rahal ba[edit]

Kuch kah rahal ba (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)

An article created by author Shwetabhranjan about their "poetry compilation" -fails WP:BKCRIT. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Ashok Shobhawat[edit]

Madhu Ashok Shobhawat (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. Local politician who does not appear to meet notability criteria WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet NPOL as a municipal chairman and also does not meet GNG. Cowlibob (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Pandya[edit]

Mukesh Pandya (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. Local politician who does not appear to meet notability criteria WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 11:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  • Speedy Keep Individual is a MLA of the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh so is part of the state government and easily meets NPOL. Added info to article to back this up. Cowlibob (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cowlibob! Nomination withdrawn in light of this.--bonadea contributions talk 20:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gross annual earnings[edit]

Gross annual earnings (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 is very confusingly written, and it is not clear if this is really a technical term. In any event, it amounts to no more than the natural combination of the meanings of "gross", "annual", and "earnings", so tells the reader nothing. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources use the expression in different ways, none exactly the same as this article.Borock (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I happen to know something about accounting. I have never heard of this expression, although it might be used in international economics or something. "Gross annual income" is not the same thing at all. Borock (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a standard measure used in econometrics, national statistics, international comparisons, &c. For example, see this OECD document. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That article talks about "gross annual earnings per employee". The WP article up for deletion talks about "amount of monetary wealth earned in a year by the working class". Not the same thing. I don't know if the OECD's usage is standard. If so correct the article and keep it. If not delete.Borock (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In common useage "the working class" includes non-employed family members. Borock (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am absolutely not an expert, but I can understand the OECD article (almost) perfectly: It says "Average gross annual earnings per employee". This appears to be the normal meanings of all of the words, put together in the obvious way: average and per employee means you add the total for all employees, and divide by the number of employees. Annual earnings means the total the employee earned in a year; I don't quite understand what gross means here, but the article certainly doesn't explain it. The article in fact is so confused, that after reading it I understand less not more. Does the person who wrote it think that magically, saying "gross annual earnings" you mean something else (such as GAE per employee)? Anyway, I do not believe there is a person alive who will be helped by reading this article, which is why I think we would have a better encyclopedia by deleting it. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gross" means before taxes are taken out. Borock (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NORTH AMERICA1000 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Joseph Pruett[edit]

David Joseph Pruett (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)

Winning a redlinked bowling tournament (top prize $5500) doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Easy Delete A Google search pulls up only his Wikipedia page as well. Jjamesryan (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, only notable to win a prize for a redlinked contest. Tibbydibby (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No information anywhere except WP. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uxfest[edit]

Uxfest (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 music festival. Only links are to the festival's old website and to a rock music station that could be a reliable independent source. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This festival ran for several years and there was plenty of coverage in the rock press of the time (Kerrang, Metal Hammer, etc) equating to WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE applies here too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have those sources? Speculation that there was coverage is not the same as actually having coverage (and whether that coverage is actually non-trivial coverage). And I did review Google books and Google news before listing it here. I couldn't find anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TalentWise[edit]

TalentWise (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 page was originally a redirect from a parent company, from which, apparently, it has since split. On 9 Dec the article was expanded from a redirect with direct copies of http://corp.talentwise.com/about-us/leadership-team and http://corp.talentwise.com/about-us. I didn't think G12 was permitted, since the historical redirect was non-infringing, but since it is now inapplicable I decided to courtesy blank the page and nom it here. Sorry if that's the wrong way, but the copyright policy pages weren't helpful about this particular situation, so I had to exercise some intuition. BethNaught (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daniels[edit]

Mark Daniels (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)

Subject of this bio lacks notability. After asking for reliable sources from the editor trying to add unsourced claims, the best they could come up with are Press Releases. I do not see significant press or third-party coverage for Daniels. He is mentioned (and eclipsed) in an article about Vince Neil's group buying some minor sports teams and is the CEO of a company that has been covered sparingly. The coverage doesn't seem to rise to Daniels being notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time. Stesmo (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are "Third Party" articles and Article page should not be deleted, here are some quick links to reliable sources that have done stories or reported news on Mark Daniels: Links referring to Mark Daniels of AeroGroup, Vince Neil, Las Vegas Outlaws

http://www.aero-news.net/annticker.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=244d8e00-9ce8-448f-8c44-e0a28a60048a http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/florida-firm-plans-to-buy-dutch-f-16bs-for-training-159719/ http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article823.html http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20020719/NEWS/207190406 http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article2908.html http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1004.html http://www.lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2014/oct/02/motley-crew-frontman-vince-neil-talks-plans-his-la/ http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/complete/185554-1.html?redirected=1 http://www.antimusic.com/news/14/September/03Motley_Crues_Vince_Neil_Scores_Football_Team_For_Las_Vegas.shtml http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/business-press/new-arena-football-team-looks-community http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/vince-neils-rockstar-sports-group-awarded-expansion-team-in-las-vegas-by-arena-football-league/ http://www.hardradio.com/hr3.html?http://www.hardradio.com/2014news/news09031402.php3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.223.96 (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks P. Parker 26 December 2014 76.110.223.96 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.223.96 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (banter) @ 22:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (drone) @ 22:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trosečník[edit]

Trosečník (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:NOTABILITY, but it of difficult when dealing with a Czech programme. It has been unreferenced and tagged for notability for almost seven years; hopefully we can now resolve it either way. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign trust[edit]

Foreign trust (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 written by Lawguru20002, all of whose edits revolve around lawyer Jacob Stein. All of the articles the user edited and created are sourced primarily to, repeatedly credit, and otherwise promote lawyer Jacob Stein (including his bio article). As the work mentions use of Stein's material "with his permission," I have to assume WP:COI is a factor here, in addition to the more obvious WP:PROMO. The articles are some years old now but have not been substantially edited otherwise. It's possible there are some notable concepts here, but notability is not the [primary] basis for this nomination.

For context, I came across these articles when I was going through edits of a[nother] spam-only account and noticed one site he/she added had been added to many other wiki pages, too. The site was maximumassetprotection.com, also run by Jacob Stein.

Also nominating Jacob Stein and Qualified personal residence trust. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. In all fairness this article does not appear to promote Jacob Stein. Merely citing him as a source is not enough to justify deletion. Looking at GBooks, I immediately find, amongst hundreds of results, law books devoting entire chapters to foreign trusts, so I think it is safe to assume that the concept or area of law satisfies GNG easily and by a very wide margin indeed. James500 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an overtly US-centric topic in a worldwide encyclopedia, intended to promote one attorney's business. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article contains no promotion whatsoever. "US centric" is an absurd and preposterous argument because law books (including books on what is known as "conflict of laws" and "private internal law") are normally written from the perspective of the law of a particular jurisdiction. This is because "law" is not an international subject. It is primarily several hundred distinct and separate national subjects because legislatures and courts are (primarily) organised along national lines and, to significant degree, these countries and states refuse to imitate, recognize or co-operate with foreign legal systems and produce national laws that are radically different from those of other countries. To argue that an article about law should be deleted because it is about the laws of a particular nation is to display complete and utter ignorance of that subject and demonstrates that one lacks the minimum level of competance necessary to edit articles on that topic. Even if the laws of countries outside America recognise some concept of a foreign trust, that can be easily dealt with either by expanding the article to include those countries (almost certainly in their own separate national sections because there will probably not be a core international topic and it would be SYNTH to try to construct one) or by moving the article to Foreign trusts in US law. The fact that an article needs to be expanded, rewritten or moved is never a grounds for deletion (WP:IMPERFECT). James500 (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since there are plently of books and coverage about the American law of foreign trusts, written from an American law perspective, this easily satisfies GNG even as a national law topic about American law, so the argument you are advancing has no merit whatsoever. James500 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, we are not just a worldwide encyclopedia. The five pillars clearly state that we also include all specialist encyclopedias aswell (WP:5). There are plenty of national encyclopedias. Moreover, legal encyclopedias are normally about the laws of a particular jurisdiction. There is, for example, an encyclopedia of American law called the Corpus Juris Secundum. And we should be doing what legal encyclopedias do because WP:5 clearly says that we are one. James500 (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the avoidance of doubt, American law does actually treat foreign trusts (ie non-American ones) differently from American trusts, and recognises them as a distinct category, for reasons that look like protectionism: [1]. This is obviously an important aspect of American law and should be covered. James500 (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restart I have to go with the WP:TNT principle on this one. I am compelled by James500's argument that the topic should certainly pass notability guidelines easily enough with a little effort to securing new sources, but the current version as it stands has so many varied and significant issues with regard to our quality and admissibility standards that I can't see it getting from the current version to his vision of it while retaining any of the present content. Particularly, it was strong issues with regard to WP:WWIN, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and with the formatting, style and tone of the prose. An encyclopedic summary of the topic of the general legal principle involved could very well prove useful to our readers; this jumbled mess of an attempt to replicate a text detailing highly specific statutes in the idiolect of a law school lecture (complete with powerpoint-style presentation) most certainly is not. I'm also troubled by the apparent COI activity of the single-purpose account. Snow talk 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is about how we split up articles that have become too long. It has no application to this article which is only 9 kilobytes long and is therefore not eligible to be split up on grounds of length. Even if this article was very long that would not be grounds for deletion.
  • WP:TNT is only an essay. It contradicts our editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT). Frankly, the argument advanced by that essay is simply wrong. Deleting badly written articles does not result in their being replaced with better articles. What is actually does is to make notable topics disappear forever. In particular, it prevents anonymous users from improving articles, because they cannot recreate a deleted article. Even a truly awful article should normally be stubified rather than deleted. WP:TNT is, in any event, an argument that I would not give a moment's serious attention in the absence of a express promise, on the part of the person advancing that argument, to recreate that article immediately as at least a valid stub.
  • Citing WP:NOT without further explanation is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:NOT is a very lengthy and multifaceted policy. It is not clear what part or parts of that policy are being invoked.
  • Issues with formatting, style and tone should never result in the deletion of an article that contains any information (ie facts) that might conceivably be retained in the encyclopedia even if every single sentence needs to be rewritten for stylistic reasons. It is not obvious to me that all of the information presently in this article is useless for creating an encyclopedia.
  • There is nothing wrong with detailing highly specific statutes if they are relevant.
  • If an article is written in the idiolect of a lecture, that is at worst an argument that it should be transwikied to Wikiversity (which accepts lectures) using the import process, not deleted.
  • As "foreign trust" is a term of art in American law, defined, in particular, in the Code of Federal Regulations, it must be, if nothing else, at the very least, a plausible redirect to some broader article in American law (ie the parent topic of foreign trusts). That means it is not eligible for deletion, period (WP:R). This is why terms of art are almost never eligible for deletion and should not normally be nominated for deletion, even if the article is atrocious. James500 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James, you make some salient points that need addressing, and I'll try to do so in what detail I can in the time I have. Yes, WP:TNT is just an essay, which is why I referenced it as a "principle" (that is, the most reasonable course of action) that I was following as opposed to a guideline. That being said, it's a principle which holds a lot of support from editors with regard to certain contexts (as I'm sure you're well aware from contributing at AfD). Mind you, I understand your reservations (I used to take a universally dimn view of it myself, but have grown to accept its utility in some cases), but I would not have referenced it were there not multiple other policies and standards that the article falls completely short on. As to which sections of WP:NOT I was referencing, they are WP:NOTREPOSITORY (specifically, item 3) and WP:NOTGUIDE (points 6 and 8 in particular) and yes, I should have linked directly to them from the outset. Per the latter section, your position that perhaps this argues more strongly for transwiking to Wikiversity than it does for simple deletion does indeed have some traction; perhaps that is an option we should explore, though from your wording I think perhaps you were just making a rhetorical point and would not necessarily support this. Likewise, the section of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE I was referencing was WP:DETAIL; again, we should not be attempting to replicate a law text, legal code compendiums, or lectures, which is an approach that pretty much every last word of the article as it stands is married to. If we had even a small, but significant, core of text that we could strip the article down to a stub around to form an encyclopedic summary of the topic, I'd probably accept your approach, but at present this is just not a Wikipedia article, but rather something that is outside the project's goals and standards.
Having addressed those points, I just don't agree with your ultimate conclusion. I'm not aware of anywhere in policy where terms of art are afforded a special status with regard to deletion procedures. On the other hand, you seem capable in this area and if you were saying that you were going to make the effort to reform this article into something more encyclopedic, I'd probably have commented here only, instead of voting for a deletion. But as I don't view the editor who is primarily responsible for this article as being experienced enough in our project and priorities to appropriately reform it, I'm still favouring the dynamite. That said, do you have an interest in fixing the article? I for one am willing to change my vote to give you the time, if you are. Snow talk 01:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to me that NOTREPOSITORY is relevant. It is not clear to me that Stein's writings are only useful when presented in their original unmodified wording. I don't why the information they contain cannot be conflated with new information added from other sources. In fact, since the web page is a dead link and GBooks does not allow users to see a preview the book, it is not clear to me that those writings have in fact been presented in their original unmodified wording. The fact that more than one source has been cited, and the brevity of the article, strongly suggest they have not.
  • Criteria 6 of NOTGUIDE is not engaged by this article because it does not contain "leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" (ie it is talking about specimen examination questions). Nor does this article appear to be an annotated text. Criteria 8 is not engaged as this article does not contain academic language and is not written only for academics. Members of Congress and judges (who presumably invented some of this language) and practising lawyers (to whom the title of Stein's book refers) are certainly not academics. I don't think that everyday readers, including non-lawyers such as investors and litigants, many of whom are far more intelligent than the average lawyer, would have any serious difficulty understanding the language used in this article. I could have understood this article at the age of ten. I can imagine an article on, for example, the tensor calculus necessarily containing far more arcane terminology than this one does. Nor do I think everyday readers expect to be addressed in baby talk. Even if criteria 8 was invoked, it is at most an argument for rewriting an article (eg by explaining jargon that can't be dispensed with altogether as being inappropriate for the context, such as describing a dog as "canis lupus familiaris" in a context that has nothing to do with zoology; and I can't see anything obviously like that in our article).
  • All WP:DETAIL says is that daughter articles should be more detailed than parent articles. The only way this could possibly be relevant is if the parent article of Foreign trust gives more detail than Foreign trust. Can you identify an article that gives more details about foreign trusts than this one does? WP:DETAIL says nothing about replicating anything. What it does say is that all topics should be covered "very thoroughly" somewhere in the encyclopedia. In any event our article does not, as far as I can see, replicate any legislation. As for "replicating" a lecture, we can use published lectures as sources of information (and we aim to be "the sum of all knowledge", so we don't exclude information for the sake of it) and problems with style are not grounds for deletion because than can be fixed very easily by editing (WP:IMPERFECT). James500 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James, I don't think you're seeing the forest for the trees here, and I very much disagree with your interpretations of WP:WWIN with regard to this article, but I don't see the point in going down an endlessly recursive process here describing those policies in more and more minute detail when it seems there's zero chance you will be won over to seeing the issues in the article that I do. My position is that the article does not contain content which is suitable to the project at present, and the person who put it there seems to be a single-purpose promotional account with a COI (albeit one who is well-intentioned and thus far not in the least disruptive) whom we can't depend upon with regard to bringing the content in-line with out standards until they have much more experience. That means the content must be removed, which in turns leaves a blanked page which must be deleted, hence my recommendation. This is often the place we come to with single-purpose accounts, because they never have experience in our methods, protocols and priorities but still make their first order of business the creation of an article.
The irony is that as an experienced editor, if you understand the topic to the degree you seem to feel you do, could have, in the time it took you to write any one of the above responses, done a rewrite on the article and I probably would have enthusiastically changed my position. But, honestly meaning no disrespect, you seem to be repeatedly passing up a practical editing solution to this problem in order to try to win the policy argument. We all get caught up in our arguments here on occasion, of course, but if you're devoted first and foremost to keeping the subject matter included in the encyclopedia, perhaps you should focus on viable work-arounds by applying your knowledge of the subject rather than redundant and exhaustive arguments drawn from policy? Snow talk 16:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to me that the whole content of this article is useless for purposes of this project.
  • If you do not provide details of what your interpretation of WP:NOT consists of, I cannot respond to that interpretation, and an admin closing this AfD cannot have regard to your undisclosed reasoning.
  • I have not agreed to do a rewrite on this article because WP:IMPERFECT says that I don't have to, because demanding that every unsatisfactory but notable article that appears at AfD be rewritten within the seven day deadline would be an impossible burden, because there is a strong consensus that there should not be a deadline on rewriting unsatisfactory but notable articles (which would probably take years) and that such a deadline would nullify the whole point of running Wikipedia as a wiki which is to allow incremental improvements to articles over a long period of time because this is known to be more efficient, because if I agree to one demand that I perform a rewrite it would open the floodgates to large numbers of further demands that would be impossible to perform in the time demanded and distract me from dealing with other problems with the encyclopedia, and most importantly, because I simply cannot understand why the person demanding the rewrite refuses to perform it himself.
  • In the time that you wrote your comments above, you could have done a rewrite on the article. Why are you not prepared to rewrite the article yourself? Why do you insist that I do it for you? James500 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are not required to do so and no one ever said anything to remotely suggest you are. But if your priority is to see that an article for this subject is retained on the project, why waste your time here making policy arguments that may be non-starters when there's a practical option available to you that would achieve that same end? And how in doing so would you be doing it "for me"? You'd be doing it for the project and because you are the one who is so strongly of the opinion that this topic should be retained therein; I'm the one who feels that it's current state means that it should be removed to avoid having content up that is so glaringly not policy-consistent. As to why I haven't made the changes myself, the answer is simple: I don't have the requisite first-hand knowledge of these particular legal issues to fix the page with the alacrity you apparently can, if your knowledge in this case is as significant as you've implied. Anyway, I've made position clear here and, again, don't see the point in going around and around on it; we'll just have to wait to see what further voices have to say on the issue. Snow talk 01:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I believe strongly that an article should be kept, I improve the article. As a matter of fact, I have done so 85 times, and every one of those articles has been kept. I will happily change my recommendation from "delete" to "keep" if an advocate of keeping the article actually improves it to an acceptable state. The article has not been edited since December 24, 2014. Are you up to the challenge, James500? This is an optional request to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen, as far as I can see, this article is not in a wholly unacceptable state. The criticisms made against this article appear to me to be either insufficiently serious to justify deletion (AfD isn't cleanup) or simply wrong. James500 (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MILL is a ludicrous essay that, if followed, would change Wikipedia into the Guiness Book of Records. The fact that it can be invoked against a topic that has received massive coverage, and easily satisfies GNG by a very wide margin, like this one (with hundreds of sources including whole chapters of books), indicates what is wrong with it. You could use that essay to argue for the deletion of all medium sized countries on grounds that they are neither the biggest nor the smallest, and are therefore run of the mill (eg "Belgium isn't particularly large or populous, and isn't a major power: therefore if Chewbacca lives on Endor you must delete Belgium"). The examples given in the essay, where they are not wrong, are based on a misreading of various parts of WP:NOT, and do not support the general principle advanced by the essay. And the concept of a foreign trust (unlike individual foreign trusts) is far removed from those examples, which include individual houses and individual football matches. There is simply no comparison. James500 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
James, you seem to be personalizing this discussion more than a little; certainly I think it should be possible to disagree with the policy positions of another commenter here with analogizing them to a cartoon caricature of non-sequitur spewing spinmaster, don't you? You say that this article should be maintained on the principle that it is a legitimate legal concept that could be theoretically improved upon. The question is, can we be certain such improvement will take place? Yes, the subject could be salvaged with some new content, but the content there now does not meet our guidelines in numerous ways and thus needs to be deleted. So how long do we wait? The article has not been altered substantially since about a month after it was created -- clearly as a companion piece to Jacob Stein -- about a year ago, when the author, having accomplished their narrow purpose here, disappeared without taking the time to better learn what a Wikipedia article actually is and improving the article accordingly -- leaving behind instead something that doesn't look, read, or serve as Wikipedia content. You say there are hundreds of sources that could support this subject, but I don't see hundreds of sources supporting the topic now; I see two references, both apparent plugs of Stein's work. WP:IMPERFECT doesn't override these considerations -- indeed the explicit wording of that blurb points to the very practical distinction that demonstrates why, in that is presumes active work by engaged editors in the improvement of content, a state of affairs that is not at work here (and which apparently isn't going to take place before the close of this AfD, which needs to assess whether there is enough of the current content that can be retained to support an article).
And putting all of these compelling factors aside for a moment, there's something else which concerns me which occurred to me after my last re-read of the article and comments; are we sure this isn't a straight-up copyvio situation? It seems that Lawguru200002 shares a close association with Stein (and may in fact be the same person), and the presentation style certainly seems consistent with a legal texts. I think it's worth looking into. Regardless, it's clear that the content in this namespace at present is not a Wikipedia article and has to go. Whether that means deleting it outright or removing the current content and replacing it with a reasonable encyclopedic summary of the concept really depends on the initiative of anyone who wishes to apply the latter before the inevitable application of the latter, but it's clear that what we cannot do is leave the current mess up as an article indefinitely, which I think is the point everyone here but yourself has converged upon. Snow talk 10:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't compare Bearian to anything. The criticism was directed at WP:MILL itself and the counter example that I gave, Belgium, was not suggested by Bearian and is not expressly suggested by the essay. The point that I was trying to make was merely that the essay, when pushed to its logical conclusion produces a result so absurd as to indicate that the principle advanced by the essay is unsound. It wasn't my intention to upset anyone and I'm sorry if what I said was misunderstood. Citing WP:MILL is not a "policy position" because the essay is not a policy. Whilst WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE are predicated on the assumption that content will be improved, they do not impose or allow for any kind of deadline. They certainly are not predicated on the assumption that improvement will be started let alone finished within the seven day period of an AfD. I see nothing about a deadline of a year for improvements, and if I was going to impose a deadline (contrary to consensus that there should not be one), I would be more likely to make it ten or twenty or fifty or a hundred years or longer, simply to take into account the sheer size of Wikipedia and the leisurely pace at which editing normally takes place. It is far from uncommon for articles to go five or ten years without much change and then suddenly be drastically overhauled. A year is a short time on Wikipedia. I think that it is reasonable to assume that all Wikipedia articles will be improved eventually, on the assumption that no matter how obscure a topic is (and this one isn't particularly obscure) there will be someone who sufficiently is interested in it to improve the article. (There are a huge number of people in the world and a great many of them have interests in far more arcane topics than this). The number of sources presently cited in the article has no bearing on the notability of topic (WP:NRVE). In determining notability, it is obligatory to use a search engine to look for sources (WP:BEFORE: GBooks is specifically mentioned as one that must be checked). The impression that I got was that there were about three hundred relevant sources in GBooks, IIRC. So, all things considered, I regret that, having regard to our policies, I am unable to agree that any of these factors is grounds for deletion. Nor would I describe a mere three !votes as a convergance, especially where one of those !votes is entirely based on a mere essay (essays carry less weight). Now, moving on to copyvio: if this page is a blatant copyvio, it certainly must be deleted immediately (CSD G12). I was under the impression, however, that we are supposed to check the source to confirm that copying has taken place. If you can get hold of a copy of the sources, and can confirm the article is eligible for deletion on grounds of infringement, I will not oppose deletion on that grounds. That said, I don't believe that copying can be inferred from style alone. Anyone who understands law should be capable of writing something that sounds like it was written by a lawyer. James500 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as regards the necessity for confirmation on copyvio and as such I'm not predicating position on deletion upon it (though I will try to look into the matter, just to be certain -- though I rather suspect the AfD will close before I can put hands on a copy. As to the more germane question of how we balance a patient approach against content that needs improving, I think there's a distinction that needs to be born in mind. As you point out, it's not uncommon (nor necessarily a problem) for an article to go years without substantial improvement. But what distinguishes those stable cases from this one is that the original material (however minimalist and incomplete), still meets with our quality and admissibility standards; it is a Wikipedia article, if only a stub. That's a satisfactory (if less than ideal) state of affairs, while content like that in question (which does not meet those minimal standards for encyclopedic material) is a different matter entirely. Sometimes AfD's are about the usual suspects (notability, forking, ect.), while other times they are just about recognizing that an article is fundamentally broken with regard to numerous, more minute, content issues (these, as in this case, are usually articles created by COI-accounts) and that they can't be expected to improve from their current state through the normal processes. Again, a stub or incomplete article is a different matter from the kind of mess we're looking at here, born of promotional intents by inexperienced non-editors.
On a side note, it only takes two people to "converge" on a given perspective, which is exactly why I chose that wording as opposed to implying established consensus -- though, for the record, there are actually four !votes for deletion, for all that numbers are worth, when we include the expressed position of the nom. Snow talk 02:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Cryptic 19:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D2 (clothing)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
D2 (clothing) (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)

Renominating based on WP:CORPDEPTH. Prev AfD had a majority keep !votes but no compelling arguments, and I'm not seeing enough about this company beyond some industry announcements, PR posts/reposts, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have added a couple of reference but am not finding substantial coverage about this firm, merely routine coverage at its outset, then announcements around its first and second administrations. Nothing that indicates lasting encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified personal residence trust[edit]

Qualified personal residence trust (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 written by Lawguru20002, all of whose edits revolve around lawyer Jacob Stein. All of the articles the user edited and created are sourced primarily to, repeatedly credit, and otherwise promote lawyer Jacob Stein (including his bio article). As the work mentions use of Stein's material "with his permission," I have to assume WP:COI is a factor here, in addition to the more obvious WP:PROMO. The articles are some years old now but have not been substantially edited otherwise. It's possible there are some notable concepts here, but notability is not the [primary] basis for this nomination.

For context, I came across these articles when I was going through edits of a[nother] spam-only account and noticed one site he/she added had been added to many other wiki pages, too. The site was maximumassetprotection.com, also run by Jacob Stein.

Also nominating Jacob Stein and Foreign trust. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the nomination advances any valid rationale for deletion. This article does not promote Jacob Stein. Merely citing him as a source does not justify deletion on grounds of advertising. COI, even if it exists, is not a grounds for deletion. The topic satisfies GNG, with entire chapters of books devoted to the concept. James500 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Esrock[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and television personality, making but not adequately sourcing claims of notability under WP:CREATIVE. In the form I first encountered it, it relied almost entirely on primary sources (e.g. his own website, claims of having written for any given newspaper "sourced" to an article in that newspaper with his byline on it, and on and so forth.) And with all of that stripped out, the article is down to just three reliable sources, of which two are locally distributed community weeklies — so there's actually only one source that counts a whit toward demonstrating notability, but one source isn't enough. Article claims that his book was a bestseller on amazon.ca, but (a) sources it to one of those weeklies, and (b) single-vendor bestsellerdom does not confer notability on a writer (especially not in a niche genre where a writer could actually make the list on a fairly insignificant actual sales total) — it takes The Globe and Mail's cross-vendor bestseller list to get a writer into Wikipedia on the basis of "Canadian bestsellerdom", not one online retailer's genre chart. Furthermore, the article reads suspiciously like a promotional profile, and was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Esrock or his TV show and whose username has the word "media" in it — thus raising the distinct possibility of WP:COI. No prejudice against recreation in the future if it can be written and sourced properly, but this version is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Google search turns up more sources. The article is a puff piece loaded with peacock words and in need of editing and lots of CN tags. But that is not a reason to delete.Gaff (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified the article creator of this discussion on their talk page. (Oddly, that was not done at time of this nom). They left a message on the article talk page when the article was originally nominated 6 years ago. Gaff (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Some copy editing still needed, but the volume of basic ref repair that's been done here is enough to convince me to withdraw this. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 18:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Army Public College of Management Sciences[edit]

Army Public College of Management Sciences (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)

Another Punjab-region "private" "college" article with no RS. Pax 06:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we routinely keep articles about degree-awarding institutions of higher learning, unless a hoax is involved. In addition, the nomination is flawed as it calls the college "private". The Pakistani Army is a public institution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for all degree granting colleges and universities DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES ƬheStrikeΣagle 14:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yoozon[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; no references. Prod was removed by the article's author. MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. The Startup Farm and Gen10 refs show the software exists, but inclusion in an Accelerator Program is not in itself enough to establish notability. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:GNG Piboy51 (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure) - ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall & Riot: The Ultimate Orgasm[edit]

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

Non-notable porn film fails WP:NF. No award wins, no RS. Pax 05:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep article does meet WP:FILMNOT and films do not have to win awards to be eligible for having a WikiP article. MarnetteD|Talk 02:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Passes WP:MOVIE. –Davey2010Talk 19:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes standards, as noted by multiple editors, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines[edit]

Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines (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 is just an event/Tour which does not follow WP:LASTING or has WP:EFFECT Lakun.patra (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It will be a major event, later this month, and will get lots of coverage in reliable sources.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Holy See–Philippines relations. Popes are like politicians: they travel around and talk a lot; while heavily covered in the press, most trips aren't particularly noteworthy historically. (I'm thinking there should be a list article for papal travel per year.) Pax 05:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will have a lot of coverage, but ultimately be just another trip to talk into microphones. Such junkets are not inherently notable unless something happens at one. Pax 07:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The visit will start in less than 5 days, which is around the time that this AfD closes. I don't think your WP:CRYSTALBALL !vote applies in this case because if we "incubate" the article, it will almost immediately be recreated anyway when the visit occurs since it will receive significant coverage as you admit. —seav (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's even better. (Arguably that other page could merge into it as well.) Pax 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The question is not on whether the visit will get lots of coverage. The fact is, the visit is already generating a lot of coverage in reliable sources with regards to preparations and the like. Remember that the Philippines is the only major Catholic country in Asia (aside from East Timor) and papal visits to this country are quite notable. —seav (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google News link provides almost 180,000 results. Even if we eliminate 99.9% of those due to irrelevance, repeated news, trivial, or routine coverage, that results into potentially 180 items that can be used to write an article. And this is just coverage ahead of the event itself. While individual items like the itinerary, or the popemobile are not inherently notable, the breadth and depth of coverage on just the visit's preparation paints a picture that is more than the sum of its parts. —seav (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep. Easily surpasses WP:EVENT -- Coverage is deep, there's been coverage from months ago, and there's a great diversity of sources. –HTD 13:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I watch Philippines media, because my domestic partner was born there, and their media is all over this. Other than the AirAsia disaster, this is by far the biggest story for the past two weeks. The impact is very likely to be big -- and long-lasting. For most Americans, they can't fathom the devotion to Pope Francis by the Filipinos, but I've never seen anything like it. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No idea how other countries treat papal visits but I have never encountered any religious or political dignitaries that caused the Philippine government to give the entire capital at least three non-working holidays --Lenticel (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a special and historical event in the Philippines and it is cover by all media. User:Nikbert16(Talk) 11:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice about subsequent redirection--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INNA: Live la Arenele Romane[edit]

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

A show attended by only 5,000 or so people that seems to have generated no reliable, in-depth discussion. Individual shows are rarely notable, and this one is no exception (see WP:NTOUR). The article itself seems like typical fan material. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (relate) @ 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inna. Most of the links have rotted, but none look reliable. Thus, per nomination statement, the article fails WP:NTOUR. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be a very rare single performance to 5000 people that would be truly notable. This does not appear to be one of those rare exceptions to that general rule. I see no need for a redirect since the performer's name is part of the concert name, though I rarely oppose any redirect that seems useful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Inna (non-admin closure) - ƬheStrikeΣagle 18:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Am the Club Rocker Tour[edit]

I Am the Club Rocker 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)

And another non-notable Inna tour, without reliable coverage of the tour as a tour by secondary sources, as required by WP:NTOUR. I just noticed that this (and the other tour and concert I just nominated) were created by a fan/sock, of User: STEF1995S. That in itself is no reason for deletion, of course, but it's interesting. At any rate, delete: basically a fan page with no notability for the topic. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (interview) @ 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inna. None of the sources are reliable. Thus, per nomination statement, the article fails WP:NTOUR. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Inna. Tours that cannot be sufficiently referenced in secondary sources should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article. In this case, I think redirecting is acceptable. MJ94 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non notable per consensus  Philg88 ♦talk 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ushin Language Institute[edit]

Ushin Language Institute (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 English language center, not a degree granting school. As I understand it, such organizations come under speedy A7, but it was declined. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsigned comment from WP:SPA page creator After having read through the guidelines, I see no obvious, immediate or relevant reason for this page to be deleted, especially when considering the many other private education institutes of its kind exist on Wiki already. This is especially true when considering that ULI has an arrangement with ZISU to help international students pass the Chinese language test - HSK (as mentioned in the article).A link will shortly be forthcoming regarding this.ate

Secondly, as also mentioned within the article, ULI is not only an English language centre, but also teaches other languages (as stated above).

In relation to 'notability', I would suggest that the association with ZISU as their central language test preparation centre to be significant, and thus, 'notable' (although, obviously, this word is fairly subjective).

I think the fact that the speedy deletion under A7 has been declined would be a good indicator that this page ought to stay (given the logic behind the deletion requests is the same). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Fairly typical language cram school. After reading through the article and knowing our guidelines I cannot see how this article even remotely meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG, besides which, being basically a promo for a run-of-the-mill commercial language school it's probably a G11 CSD candidate for advertising or using Wikipedia as a listing site. It's certainly neither a mainstream high school or degree awarding institution that might, under certain conditions being met, accord it some notability. Riding on the back of unsourced informal university recognition does not in any way assert notability here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (collogue) @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep ULI is not a typical language school. It's also the designated translation partner for Qiusuo Documentary channel, which is a joint venture of Discovery channel and Wasu Digital TV (aka, Wasu Media group) in China. link and some references added at the end. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Besides, ULI's partner university ZISU is not "an unsourced informal university". First of all, provincial government of Zhejiang just invested 1.5 billion RMB into the development of this university last year, which indicates the province's determination to develop ZISU; secondly, ZISU is the earliest university in Zhejiang province to develop international studies. The wikipedia page of ZISU has not been updated for a long while but it doesn't mean ZISU is an unsourced informal university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking duplicate !vote. You're only allowed to !vote once, but can comment as much as you wish. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Kudpung's analysys. Pax 07:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, check "The Chinese Language Institute", pretty much the same school structure. If that institute can exsit, this should also be.Lukasonny (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not only a new user, but one with currently TWO total contributions, both at AFD. Special:Contributions/Lukasonny Will consider reporting as WP:sock puppet. Gaff (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A commercial operation which provides services to several organisations does not inherit notability from them. One of the existing references does not appear to cover the subject of the article, and I am seeing no evidence that would indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability (though open to changing that opinion if someone identifies such in Chinese language sources). AllyD (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • hello. Lanex program is a non-profitable program as stated in the article, and will soon have a reference from German media as it's an on-going program.(A link to that will soon appear at the end of this month). One of the link directs to the launch of Qiusuo channel as it doesnt have a page on wiki, the reference is given to prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • hello, this is getting ridiculous. if you dont believe an on-going program, there's still no need to verbally 'attack' an institution with biased comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rolo Tomassi / Throats Split[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rolo Tomassi / Throats Split (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)

Pretty horrific article about a shared 7" single, consisting of a major chunk of a press release and an inline citation to one of the bands' MySpace page. I can't see anything of note about the single(s) using Google. Sionk (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn in favour of the merge and redirect decision at the 2009 AfD that wasn't carried out. Based on a press release, the single deserves a sentence at most. Sionk (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolichyl-P-Glc:Glc1Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase[edit]

Dolichyl-P-Glc:Glc1Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase (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)

Also nominated:

This article makes no sense. The name is ridiculous, nobody would come here to look at this drivel, and even if you were able to understand what it is talking about, it doesn't actually give any information that could be useful to somebody in the biology field. Also, is every type of enzyme inherently notable? Rcsprinter123 (message) @ 13:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (utter) @ 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article describes a class of enzymes, as it is defined by the IUMBC. The article is a stub, and as such it contains a small amount of information. However, it's information content is sufficient to serve as a starting point for further reading. The stub contains:
  • A formal name of the enzyme that is in agreement with the IUMBC recommendations for enzyme nomenclature.
  • The unique enzyme identifier, EC number.
  • A range of alternative names, which could be encountered in the literature.
  • The reaction that the enzyme performs.
  • A set of key references
  • The links to a range of public databases.
The stubs about enzyme classes outline the very foundation of enzymology. It is regrettable that reading biochemical terms usually require a certain basic level of training in the field. It is hoped that in time these stubs would be expanded. Their deletion would be wrong, as it would strip Wikipedia from even the most rudimentary coverage of enzymology. --Dcirovic (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John lilburne This enzyme (EC 2.4.1.265) is coded in the majority of species by the gene called ALG8. Please have a look at these Uniprot records. The gene you are referring to (ALG8_HUMAN) is among them. The adjective "probable" in its name is an annotation artifact.
In my opinion, the IUMBC name is an adequate choice of the article name. However, referring to this enzyme class by the gene name is simpler. --Dcirovic (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete named article - I'm sorry, but I'm studying Chemistry myself (not Biochem, I'll grant you) and still struggle to make head or tail of these. This enzyme is not particularly notable, and that is obvious from the fact that it doesn't have a well-recognized shortened name. The reaction it is involved in has two chemicals that have far more complex names still; again, if they were notable, someone would've shortened it to a far easier-to-understand abbreviation or name. EC numbers don't count here. It exists, sure, but there's no way that this is remotely encyclopedic; it's just a complete mess. I don't think that nuking most of the category in one go is a good idea, because everything needs at least a very basic once-over to check if it is actually readable, or if it is saveable; however, some more definitely need to go. For example, Dolichyl-P-Glc:Man9GlcNAc2-PP-dolichol alpha-1,3-glucosyltransferase is no better, and that is one that I think should be deleted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disclaimer: I am a physician with a degree in Biochemistry. There are a finite number of named enzymes within the scope of human knowledge. This is one. It has been characterized and the article (though stubby) is sourced. "The name is long and confusing" is not a reason to delete. We have articles on many, many, many stars. The proposition that all articles in the Category:Transferases be deleted borders on being disruptive for WP:Pointyness. The name may not seem elegant to somebody illiterate in the language of naming complex biochemicals, but that is its name. Maybe someday it will be renamed Viagra. Gaff (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. There are two kinds of articles on Wikipedia: the kind you find by entering a name in the search-field, and the kind you go to after clicking its link in another article. This is clearly in the latter category, as most molecules with preposterously long names are also. (Whether this is the best name for the article is a clean-up detail.) It also goes without saying that "hard science" subjects such as these are, regardless of obscurity, objectively more valuable forms of knowledge worth retaining. Pax 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of diplomatic missions in Moldova. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 17:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bulgaria, Chișinău[edit]

Embassy of Bulgaria, Chișinău (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. Purely an address listing Embassies are not inherently notable. There is also no bilateral article to redirect this article to. Also nominating for same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but probably each should be moved to proper title for bilateral relations, e.g. move to Poland-Moldova relations (or [[Moldova-Poland relations), Hungary-Moldova relations (or Moldova-Hungary relations, and Turkey-Moldova relations (or Moldova-Turkey relations). This kind of resolution has settled many previous AFDs about embassy articles. If there is not specific info about a historic building or whatever, an embassy stub should usually be redirected to the bilateral relations article, or should be moved to create that. Just make the moves here. Technically for the AFD this means "Keep". Keeping preserves the edit history. Build rather than tear down, please. Flooding AFD with similar nominations does not help, just make the moves without requiring other editors' attention. --doncram 01:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note there is material and links about Turkey-Moldova relations, in particular, available within Foreign relations of Moldova#Bilateral relations, ready to be used in separate article. --doncram 02:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to List of diplomatic missions in Moldova. We have an appropriate list article which is light on detail. If anything gets so big as to make that list unwieldy, it can always be split out again. Individual articles for buildings that will never meet inclusion criteria is pointless. St★lwart111 08:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shii (tock) 18:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Freedom Outreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Personal Freedom Outreach (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. Article is sourced mainly to its own websites, with only the briefest mentions in a couple other related sources. BayShrimp (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The PFO publishes the Quarterly Journal which is an important conservative evangelical Christian journal with a board of reference that includes several well known conservative theologians. The Quarterly Journal has been continuously published for over 3 decades. I plan to use some of the Quarterly Journal articles as source material for improving Wikipedia articles on New Religious Movements. As a result, the article should not be deleted. Note - My only connection to PFO is that I am a subscriber to the Quarterly Journal and have done some minor typos edits to this article in the past. Taxee (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google searches do show that it exists and publishes its journal and also some books. I don't see any real coverage about it. Another organization cited in the article as being related does not list it in its list of links to other organizations: http://emnr.org/links/. It does not have to have an article in WP for its publications to be used as sources in other articles.Borock (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patently senseless nomination. They enjoy the support of prominent evangelical theologians and have received high credit in scholarly literature, as well as by other esatblished counter-cultists. --Jonund (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (soliloquize) @ 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of secondary sources. Notability is not inherited from being associated with notable people or other groups.Skylark777 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There is clearly sufficient third party coverage. Even if this depends on the subject's press releases, the fact that the Christian press has chosen to report them implies that they consider the subject worth reporting. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete PFO is irrelevant unimportant group, not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This group is less worthy of an article than my band I had in high school. I bet my band had far more followers than these clowns. If not for its own webpages one wouldn't even know this "group" existed. It is mainly used as a website to offer up critical commentary on other subjects (such as Bill Gothard or Benny Hinn), when really PFO is not a reliable or reputable source about anything. It's just a self-published blog by a bunch of unimportant people with obvious biases. When people got tired of PFO's critiques being removed from other articles on Wikipedia, someone got the wise idea of making an article about PFO, as if having an article about this "group" somehow makes them relevant. They are not relevant. There are no reliable or reputable sources of information that mention PFO and certainly none that evaluate PFO with a critical eye, or even a non-critical eye. This article should be removed. Vivaldi (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google news search uncovers minimal RS employing PFO as a source in skeptical appraisals of apparent evangelical fabulists. Pax 07:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Real Time Action Technology[edit]

Real Time Action Technology (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)

Pure advertisement, with zero reliable sources to support the notability of the subject as a term of art. Article was prodded, but was restored by creator's request. Creator provided no rationale. —Swpbtalk 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (prattle) @ 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (sing) @ 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Added G11 speedy. Pax 07:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article whose references are either to a firm which uses this term or to generic coverage of other terms. There is significant overlap with existing articles on Decision support system and Customer relationship management and I am not seeing anything indicating distinct use of this term outside the one firm who have this as a trademark term. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No (Marina and the Diamonds song)[edit]

Oh No (Marina and the Diamonds song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I Am Not a Robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hollywood (Marina and the Diamonds song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources leads me to believe this fails NSONG. However, Aspects disputes this due to chart positions. (NSONG, it should be noted, says that factors such as record charts "suggest that a song or single may [emphasis not mine] be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label".

I Am Not a Robot and Hollywood (Marina and the Diamonds song) will be added to this AfD shortly for similar reasons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter123 (notify) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. The articles use The Guardian, BBC 1, NME, Vogue, Pop Justice as sources. Since when aren't those notable enough? All three are in her most downloaded songs of hers in the iTunes, more than singles that had more success. All three music videos have over 10 million views on YouTube. They were used in advertisments ("The Big Bang Theory", "Awkward"). They also charted, as you mentioned. They have information about the creative process, they're not just a cover art and a chart thrown in. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that most of the sources used are about the songs' parent album or the artist - that does not demonstrate the notability of the song. Neither do YouTube views or ad placements. WP:NSONG says that notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in sources, and that songs whose coverage mostly occurs in the context of their parent albums should not have individual articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, her songs are published on musicnotes.com [2]. I've managed to gather these news:[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] Retroactively speaking, the songs seem to be referenced by the media, following the release of her second album; here's one about "Hollywood" [16] and one about "I Am Not a Robot" [17]. In an interview for her next album, the first questions are only about "Hollywood" [18]. I think it proves they're all notable. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1 comes from a primary source (the publishing company), 4 is a lyric database (of questionable legality, at that), 5 is a retail listing, 7 is not SIGCOV, 8 is the artist's video only with no coverage, 9-14 and 16 come from blogs (not reliable), and 17 is about the artist and one of her albums with the song receiving passing mention (again, not SIGCOV). As for the rest, these for the most part aren't particularly fleshed out and that leaves about 1-2 brief articles about each song, which, again, I would not define as "significant coverage". No reason the information can't be contained in album articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9-14 aren't blogs, they're the Popjustice website. 8 proves the release was whorthy enough to be mentioned, while 17 doesn't just mention the song, the first four questions are about it - and this is while talking about the new album, which didn't feature the said single. Alecsdaniel (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Popjustice is a website run by a respected veteran music journalist. I don't agree that the coverage in the other reliable sources listed is as trivial as you describe. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Sufficient coverage exists to have meaningful articles, and the singles have sufficient real world significance. Why the nominator feels these should be deleted is beyond me. At the very least they would be merged to the artist or associated album. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Top 40 singles in the UK; notability demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that he became notable during this AfD! Mojo Hand (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jermaine Hylton[edit]

Jermaine Hylton (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)

Has yet to play in a fully professional league per WP:NFOOTBALL. Prod was removed because, "Deletion proposal has been removed as individual in question has played pro youth football and been involved in a pro dev. game. They are awaiting an offer from one pro team and more potentially." Bgwhite (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has now played in an FPL match and so meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, as he hasn't appeared under a fully professional club. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Too soon. But if he plays for Swindon on Saturday, don't delete :-) Don't know what the editor removing the prod was on about, though. Not sure what "pro youth football" is, and the "pro dev." game was a behind-closed-doors training game that happened during the week he was on trial with Birmingham. Hopefully once Mr Hylton does play for Swindon and we can write about what he's done, we can leave out all the promotional hype. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now he has. But the rest still applies. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Swindon play tomorrow night, the Beeb say he "is set to be named in the squad" but that doesn't necessarily mean anything of course -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Played tonight v Coventry. [20].--Egghead06 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added and referenced his Football League appearance. An editor with better knowledge of his early career might like to edit the journalese. (How do you climb through a pyramid?).--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – While this AfD was open, Hylton appeared as a sub for Swindon Town F.C., thus meeting WP:NFOOTY. This article definitely needs improvement, but that will come as Hylton's career progresses. — Jkudlick tcs 07:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully professional league. IJA (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_January_8&oldid=1142625839"