Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military Incompetencies[edit]

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

The list has only just been created, but is already a massive opinion piece. I removed two entries due to them not being factually accurate, ignoring context, and being un-sourced opinions. Looking over most of the rest, they all suffer from the same problems. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - - - - - -

If you are going to remove items from this list for being factually inaccurate, perhaps you might also like to remove them from the older List of military disasters. This list is to a great extent, at present, a much shorter version of that one. If the principle you choose is factual accuracy, you can add more value by attending to the longer list, perhaps.

When you assert that the rest of the entries in the list "suffer the same problems", are you really saying that the list typically contains no examples of military incompetence? The Charge of the Light Brigade, to take just one example, is reckoned by most experts and non experts as a case of military incompetence.

Might I venture to suggest that you think over your opinion that this list is a massive opinion peace, and perhaps check also whether you meant to use that spelling—perhaps you are angry for some reason and are writing in a great rush? The article begins by giving the criteria for military incompetence, from two noted authorities. These definitions can be used to filter the list.

The value of this list is that it may well save lives, by providing a ready reference of what our political and military leaders have got wrong in the past.

I have given a few specific examples of where I believe the facts contradict your assertions. Before proceeding with your impulse to wipe out this list in what feels to me like a sort of unintentional WikiNapalming of work done with honest and humanitarian intent, would you mind terribly taking the time and trouble to write down the evidence for, say, three examples to support your assertion that they suffer from "not being factually accurate [and] ignoring context".

"CourtCelts"

CourtCelts1988 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I note that Wikipedia's policy is that before nominating an article for deletion, editors should consider contacting the page creator. No one contacted me. I also note that the policy reminds us all that many pages start out badly and that editors should try to be tolerant. Of course professional Wikipedians must probably do what they will, but I am a little surprised at the apparent gap between Wikipedia's own guidelines and the way that this article has so far been handled.

- - - - - - - - - - -

I would like to note that I have also looked a the disasters list, and that could probably do with deletion too. But one battle at a time. Wiki is not in the business of trying to save lives or being a political soapbox, it is here to write articles based on reliable sources. So far, your list is largely based off opinions and news reports.

You would like three examples? Well, here is seven examples of misusing sources, lacking facts, and being opinions pieces.

Maginot Line - Absolutely no context of what the line was built for, or why the French held such mentality to construct it. Pure opinion that the French were acting incompetently when they designed a defensive system aimed at not repeating the First World War (heavy losses, and fighting on French soil to name a few). No source provided.
Operation Compass: Gives the incorrect position that was the Italian invasion and construction of camps. Lack of sources.
Operation Typhoon: Gross oversimplification of what happened. The German's are guilty of incompetence because they didn't bring enough antifreeze with them? No sources.
Stalingrad: Paulus is guilty of incompetence because of rubble in the streets and sending in his armoured units? I suppose Operation Charnwood should be added to the list, amongst practically every other urban battle of the war, based on that criteria. No sources.
Market Garden is deemed to have been a military incompetence because of the "slowness of the ground force". This, while open for debate, completely avoids the discussion amongst historians of the numerous faults with the plan from the airforce side of things, personality clashes, the airborne plan, and the ground plan (which had a Corp on either flank of XXX Corps advancing faster than XXX Corps were at some point in time). Not to mention anything is sourced.
HMS Cornwall: No source provided to indicate that the whole situation was due to incompetence. The article on the subject does declare while there was failings and a ""collective failure of judgment" that these "were not the result of a single gross failing or individual human error".[140]" That pretty much contradicts your opinion on the subject.
Misuse of sources to support your opinion for Operation Telic.

In addition, while no one would disagree that the first day of the Somme was a major disaster, I am left curious how the British staff officers are labeled incompetent for being unable to do anything about the large number of casualties. Considering the article on the subject has been heavily rewrote recently, it is seen that not enough ambulance trains were provided/arrived on time, the casualty clearing stations were swamped, stretcher-bearers were venturing into no-mans land, and in places truces were organized for retrieve the wounded.

Likewise, the Midway article does not use the term incompetent for what transpired nor does its sourced description match this articles. I could go on, looking at the other entries in the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being too general/indiscriminate and failing WP:SALAT. Dixon's extremely broad definition of incompetence would, I believe, cover at least half the battles in history, probably more. Consider for example the first part of the American Civil War. Union incompetence galore! Same thing for World War I in the trenches. It is the job of commanders to entice their counterparts into making fatal blunders. Do we need a list of every time they succeeded? No. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EnigmaMcmxc. I note that CourtCelts1988 is involed in a content dispute on List of military disasters and this new article smacks of WP:POVFORK. Hamish59 (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious POVFORK. Note I have blocked the author for 24 hours for edit-warring on the List of military disasters page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OK, the nom dropped the ball on notifying the creator, but he seems to have found out quickly enough. But yeah, this would cover half the battles in history -- look at the second part of the Civil War: Confederate incompetence galore! (Couldn't resist.) This'd make for not only a giant and unmaintainable list, but it'd be a constant edit warring battleground, what with dueling "Soandso was incompetent / No he wasn't" edits, all backed by reliable sources editorializing in favor of one commander or another. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SYNTH/OR - the decision of what to include or not to include seems to have been based on OR here, and is very subjective. There's no source out there that would allow us to make an authoritative list of "military incompetencies," the decision of what to include is always going to be subjective and controversial. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SALAT and WP:POVFORK. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of few better examples of articles which seem designed to encourage the addition of POV rubbish and edit wars. Incidentally, nowhere does it say that nominators are obliged to notify the page creator. One would imagine they had articles they'd created on their watchlist, especially those only created that day... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. There's a bit of POINT here as well, given the argument and shenanigans at the list of disasters. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, a POV fork. Additionally, the criteria for inclusion are vague and inherently OR. (That all four listed examples of 21st century "military incompetence" are critical of the same country is just a coincidence, I'm sure.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:08, 17 July 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) 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted W. Kulp[edit]

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

This politician looks like he's notable (though I haven't checked thoroughly), but an editor has reverted my challenge of a A7 tag on it, so I'm bringing discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a pretty big nobody. Nothing notable about him. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:NPOL, leaders of fringe political parties are allowed to have articles on Wikipedia if they can be properly sourced enough to pass WP:GNG as an individual — but being a party leader is not a notability freebie that entitles a person to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced article just because they exist(ed). The sourcing here is inadequate at best, and the article does not make a strong claim that he's notable for anything else besides leading a fringe party. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like the career of a nobody politician trying desperately to be somebody and failing. Fails WP:BIO going away. And I wouldn't even say he's "led" a fringe party, unless declaring yourself the "head" of a "party" that never gets registered counts. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everybody that voted. Coconuts31 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 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) 22:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Wittus[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an entrepreneur, written very much like a promotional brochure and sourced exclusively to WordPress blogs with not a shred of reliable source coverage. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and a person does not gain an automatic entitlement to have an article on here just because they exist — if you can't properly source them over WP:GNG, then they just don't get to be here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No reliable sources exist for this person at all to assert anything stated in the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea how he got into IMDb without any credits, but I've notified them. This bozo got arrested for "driving into oncoming traffic".[1] That's about it. He should no longa be "witt us". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda the dictionary definition of why we don't consider IMDB a reliable source. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. An unaffiliated volunteer pointed out that a help explanation states if he just claims credits (like The Dark Knight no less!) in his resume, that (and presumably a membership fee) is good enough. This calls for something stronger than a smh: a bthaw (bang their heads against the wall). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*headdesk* (Best I can do while I'm sitting at my computer...) Bearcat (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I think I'm gonna get me an IMDB listing then! What movies do you think I should have appeared in? Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete with 150mm HE: Per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BULLSHIT and hell, it's a blatant hoax and should get G3ed. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason subject should be consider notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing. Msnicki (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - page has been copy-and-paste moved to Draft:Jared Wittus. ansh 666 01:33, 17 July 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) 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Reid[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no obviously good move target and, while it's evident she's not independently notable for an article, there's not even much at IMDb and a few searches found nothing outstanding. IMDb is better suited for numerous pages for actors and filmmakers. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial evidence of notability provided or found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:40, 19 July 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) 03:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smileycoin[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable cryptocurrency. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources are provided which indicate notability; the page creator's edit summary "This page is about an electronic currency used for a purpose never used before, i.e. rewarding students in an open educational environment" is insufficient without reliable sources to indicate it, and maybe not even then as WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I was able to locate this source here, but it's not enough to establish notability per WP:ORG (specifically, WP:ORGSIG). There doesn't appear to be significant coverage, and definitely nothing that shows that it should have it's own article in Wikipedia. No reliable independent sources have discussed it enough to bring this article to meet these guidelines. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance or importance. No substantial in-depth sources. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my searches found nothing particularly good with the best being this "benzinga". SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 21 July 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 withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Young (writer)[edit]

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

NN writer/editor. While the magazine he edits may be notable (not convinced), this individual does not appear to pass WP:GNG at all - the mini-bios on pubs he contributed to don't make the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" grade.

Note that there are other writers named Rob Young, for example the screenplay writer at www.robyoung.info The Dissident Aggressor 20:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electric Eden. Deleting the information on EE from his article should have been an indication. It's very common, and in fact advised, to write about an author's books on their own WP page (as they are part of the author's oeuvre). This is especially important when the books don't warrant articles of their own. A very quick search of his work, though, find a handful of reviews, but no book received as well as EE (multiple reviews, "Young published his monumental and even broader history, Electric Eden, ... to plaudits from both the literary and musical worlds"[2]). In this case, we redirect to the book since the book has much more coverage than the writer himself (though there is some secondary source coverage about his life/work in a Google Books search). As for doubting whether The Wire deserves its own article, I'd start here. The magazine is a big deal. If you'll withdraw this AfD, we can opt for a speedy redirect. – czar 23:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOMIINATION WITHDRAWN per our Russian leader's suggestion. Please close this. The Dissident Aggressor 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 16 July 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) 03:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renae Cruz[edit]

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

Fails porn bio and is non notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just award nominations. Fails GNG without significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Even if you count the XBIZ article cited, this performer still comes up short. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My media sweeps came up empty.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject clearly fails the applicable SNG and coverage is neither substantive not reliable enough to satisfy the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 19 July 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) 03:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Nice[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and if anyone wants to count her being arrested for flashing, that's blp1e. Otherwise non noble. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Mainstream work (if you can call it that) is trivial. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Calling that lewd conduct bust story significant is a long stretch. It also falls under WP:DOGBITESMAN. All other RS coverage found consists of passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 19 July 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) 03:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bangkok[edit]

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

Was kept before when PORNBIO was significantly looser. No longer meets that standard and appears non notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't count for anything? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - not in my book no. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not exactly a notable "Time's Most Influential" list, no, and any such list where Asia Carrera isn't #1 is BS. IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 15:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editor always votes keep in porn-related AfD debates. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No closing admin worth his/her salt pays the slightest attention to "keep it's notable!" opinions, esp from this one in this topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only award nominations. A one-paragraph mention in a magazine isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Searches for RS coverage get only passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not meet the notability requirments of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above; my media sweeps came up dry.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple nominations are no longer a pornbio criteria qualifier, and no adequate coverage in independent reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 19 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVPN Over SSH[edit]

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

WP:NOT a guide or manual Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability or even existence; not a single one of the references mentions this supposed encryption protocol. Huon (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and draft/userfy if wished - I found no evidence of good third-party coverage even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→OpenVPN: There seems to be enough reference material to support a brief implementation mode section in the OpenVPN article; would not support maintenance as a stand alone article at the present time based on available coverage. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC) @WikiVPN888:[reply]

I don't see violations, definitely should be kept. I've been searching for an article like this for months. The article is very informative, I'm not saying it's the best. It would be great if someone could edit and add more info but I don't see why should it be removed?

~~Asmaa.ispire (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Asmaa IbrahimAsmaa.ispire (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)~~ striking comment from blocked sockGaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:33, 14 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolyn M. Parker[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This is a WP:BLP of a television producer, which as written consists solely of a single sentence asserting her existence while completely failing to note or reliably source any indication that she satisfies any of our notability rules. (Television and film producers do not gain an automatic entitlement to keep Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and nobody involved in the film industry in any capacity gets an automatic notability freebie just because they have an IMDb profile to link to — rather, they must be reliably sourced as either passing WP:GNG, or satisfying a specific criterion such as winning a film or television award for one or more of their productions.) Was speedied A7, but the creator demanded that it be restored and taken to AFD instead. I still don't see it as anything but a WP:SNOWy redelete unless the substance and sourcing get beefed up well beyond where they're standing now, but Wikipedia process requires me to respect and honor the request nonetheless. It's still a delete unless major improvement happens before closure. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added a few contributions of the writer/producer as well as changed to stub. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - I'm very familiar with this writer's work but there's nothing particularly notable for a Wikipedia article (unless others want to accept an article like this). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this former business executive and writer the same person? EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but not confirmed as this is not a very common name and both those links mention the book; I can't find anything to link all of it but it makes sense some of these production people have everyday jobs. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different person altogether. This person is a writer and creator of shows for several TV series, and not an author of the books mentioned above. The "what links here" tab in the article connects to several of the shows. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that one of those two profiles contains some suggestion that Parker the book writer/business executive edged into some screenwriting as well (without, unfortunately, being specific about what film or television projects she may have written for) — so while we'd obviously need a much more solid source than we have now to assert that they are the same person, it's not nearly as cut and dried that they aren't the same person as you seem to think it is. If one or both of them are so poorly sourceable that it's impossible to definitively clarify one way or the other (e.g. by comparing properly sourced biographical details), then that very lack of adequate sourcing unfortunately argues against one or both of them being appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG, pure and simple. Nha Trang ^Allons! 13:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Ghostwheel ʘ 03:47, 22 July 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. Let me know if anyone wants this drafting or userfying. Davewild (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce el rayess[edit]

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

not yet notable. I'd encourage the article's creator to take this to draft space while awaiting evidence of notability. Note that creator has a COI. valereee (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move to draft space, not yet notable per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the "youngest English language novelist in Lebanon" is a very narrow category for notability. Joyfoux, in writing on Talk:Joyce el rayess (at this version) that "I am the youngest English writing novelist in my country", has admitted that this is an autobiography. So, Rayess has paid to have her book published, and is now coming to Wikipedia to promote herself. Should she eventually become notable, someone else can write an article about her. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiography of a non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no better sources than the ones now in the article. Of course there could be offline sources, or ones not found by Google. That is perhaps more likely for Lebanon than for Europe or North America, but we can't judge any such sources unless and until they are cited. There should be no prejudice against creation of a later, better sourced version, and if proper reliable sources are offered before the AfD closes, I might reconsider this view. DES ^(talk) 01:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches found zero reliable sources, just lots of social media self promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this person is an English-language novelist, the presence of sources findable in English is likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also skeptical of the claims. No one in Lebanon who is younger than 29 has had an English-language novel published? I find that hard to believe, and if it is true, mainly shows how few people in Lebanon engage in writing English-language novels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move The book "Different Minds" does exist on Amazon under her name, just that it doesn't currently bring notability to the subject of this article. Move to draft space or even as a user subpage, since notability may be gathered in the far future if a few bestsellers appear. Otherwise, I have relatives and friends who have written well published books and don't meet notability guidelines. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Move to draft space This article has had an edit that removed 95% of the content and while there was a lot of peacock language and some oversharing, the creator might wish to have another go at creating a decent, well-referenced article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything in reliable sources which would meet WP:AUTHOR. I agree with Liz on userfy-ing the article, give the author/subject a chance to get some sources and write up a good article! Ghostwheel ʘ 04:06, 22 July 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 ^Talk 15:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn Stars Australia[edit]

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

single line, unreferenced article that fails to assert notability of the subject. No objection to retention if it is significantly expanded with references but, in its present form it should not exist. AussieLegend (✉) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the significant improvement to this article by Alec Station, I'm withdrawing this nomination and I'm more than happy for this AfD to be closed as keep. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't care for this show but I have seen news about it. I will try to fix it. Alec Station (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has now been improved with multiple sources that show it passes WP:GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 08:43, 21 July 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 per WP:CSD#A3 Article has no meaningful, substantive content. Chillum 17:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish football transfers summer 2015[edit]

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

Completely "empty" article, without a simple transfer. This creator keep just creating article without sufficient content (he is at ANI). Qed237 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as we would for empty categories and DAB/setindex articles with no actual entries. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as empty article. Can be recreated at the end of the season if it transpires that somehow transfers in this league garnered sufficient significant coverage as a subject matter in themselves to meet GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a potentially notable topic, but as it is empty it serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 17:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savaş Polat[edit]

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

Non notable footballer per WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in any WP:FPL. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Qed237 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played both of Fenerbahçe's cup matches against Kayserispor last season. Since he has played cup matches between two FPL clubs, the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, player does not have to play in a league match between two FPL teams to meet WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I linked to Turkish article (also stub) but tried to improve a bit. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTY has played in a cup matches between 2 WP:FPL teams.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability for playing in a cup match. WP:NFOOTBALL -Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 17:17, 16 July 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. AfD was not necessary, as it clearly qualifies for a G5 speedy deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (Martin Garrix song)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per G5, the article created by User:Tims88 who is a block-evading sock of User:Timothe8872. Non-notable song. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothe8872. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 14 July 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. AfD was not necessary, as it clearly qualifies for a G5 speedy deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break Through The Silence (Martin Garrix song)[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per G5, the article created by User:Tims88 who is a block-evading sock of User:Timothe8872. Non-notable song. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timothe8872. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 16:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 July 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. Davewild (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Groningen Journal of International Law[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If not independently notable, this ~~should~~ (could) be merged to University of Groningen as per WP:ATD-M. The University article presently has no mention of this journal. This would improve the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point there appears to be not a single independent source. All we have is the journal's own website, which is not even clear about its relationship with the university. --Randykitty (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but primary sources can be used to verify content in articles. Here's more background info. about the journal, which is "run entirely by students at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, with supervision conducted by an Advisory Board of academics." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be used for that, but I'd be hesitant to add info when all we have is the journal's homepage. And "run entirely by students at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, with supervision conducted by an Advisory Board of academics" does not necessarily imply that the university is involved, all those people can volunteer their time, so a formal connection with the university is not certain. All we can say at this point is that this is an activity by people studying/working at this university. --Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage, fails WP:GNG. Highest-cited paper has four citations. Esquivalience ^t 18:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the university per NorthAmerica1000. I don't think it matters whether the connection is formal or informal. Cited in 'premiere' sources like books from OUP. James500 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar gives a few articles cited one time each and one article cited four times. None of the citations seems tohave been from a book (let alone OUP). Perhaps you can tell us where you found those citations? As for formal/informal: there's a club playing pool once a week. The members are students and some faculty of the university. They have a website. Should we include that in the article, too? --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Randykitty: (1) Two of the citations are in this book from OUP. They abbreviate the name of the journal to "GroJIL" (see the table of abbreviations for confirmation of the meaning of this expression). This sort of abbreviation is the norm for legal citations and has to be watched for. There are other citations in GBooks, such as this book from OUP, this book from Routledge, this book from CUP, and so forth. GScholar does not know all, and one's searches should not end there. In fact, there seem to be quite a lot of things missing from GScholar. When I look at your search on GScholar, I only see one citation, not four, which may indicate it isn't working. (2) If the club is mentioned in even one 'quality', like a book from a university press, the answer to your question may be "yes". People who see the citations in those books are going to come looking for this. James500 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Randykitty has compelling arguments for failing WP:NJOURNAL. poor level of citations and little coverage by the international law community. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:NJournals, does not meet any one of the three criteria outlined in Wikipedia:JOURNALCRIT. Ghostwheel ʘ 23:58, 21 July 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Songs on 12 Play[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG as it lacks significant coverage in third party sources, and has major neutrality issues. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very low charting song. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Hunger Games characters. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haymitch Abernathy[edit]

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

There is no real world information about this character in the article. The only info present there is plot summary, which can easily be covered by the series article, the book articles or the film articles. Therefore, Haymitch may fail the general notability guideline. Fangusu (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any key character in multiple notable works of fiction (in this case three novels and a bunch of film adaptations) has generally been retained. Second option is to redirect to The Hunger Games. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Every standalone article must verify how it lives up to the WP:GNG, fictional characters too. The Haymitch Abernathy character must have notability independent from The Hunger Games for it to have a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. no independent notability from The Hunger Games book/film series. AadaamS (talk)
Delete and redirect- Character articles like this just tend to be plot regurgitations. No independent notability. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Hunger Games characters. The article is just a plot summary. Fictional characters need to have real world notability, but none is asserted. WP:NOTINHERITED means that the notability of the character's series does not make the character notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:14, 21 July 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) JAaron95 ^Talk 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For You (Film)[edit]

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

The film fails the general notability guideline as well as the more specific criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (films). Diannaa (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Keep per meeting WP:NF per Arabic language coverage (now added). Sorry to disagree Diannaa and Kierzek, but currently used sources DO offer more than trivial non-English coverage to meet WP:GNG.[3][4] and it was nominated for best film at the International Catholic Film Festival.[5] And, as the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture does not seek press for its film festivals, I will look for more in non-English languages. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to apologize, I'm bound to be wrong some of the time. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe an major issue leading to this being nominated by Diannaa, and a problem I came across in my search for sources, is that this Lebanese film has no English language release, no English release title, and no English-language coverage under its current article title. That being the case, I thus urge that after a "keep" the article be moved to the easily sourcable Anglicized "Men Ajlikom " per WP:NCF#Rationale. Keeping it at its current (poor) title will confound any who try to find sources under that (poor) name. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MJS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be MQS Doc... Q, not J.. but thanks.

22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the expansion work. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear MichaelQSchmidt, thanks a lot for your contributions. I believe that Fr. Sawaya by chosing this 'English title', is saying to all humans(including English-speaking persons) that Jesus Christ was sent to carry their pain, suffering & woes... I thus hope to "keep" the article with the English title : 'For You'. ^{Georges Aoun} 14:30 UT, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of help, Georges. We do know that Father Sawaya called his Lebanese film من اجلكم‎ or Men Ajlikom, but we have no evidence that he ever called his Arabic language film by the English title of For You. Worse, under that suggested title it is essentially unsourcable. WP:NCF tells us "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward." Not ever being released or reviewed as For You, it's most common title is the Anglified Men Ajlikom. I have thus addressed guideline instruction in the first sentence of the lede... giving its sourcable common title, the native Arabic title and that suggested alternate English title. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:20, 19 July 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) 22:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan.Zonebac[edit]

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

Non-notable computer virus. Fails WP:GNG. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adware.W32.ExpDwnldr as precedent. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Incidental mentions in antivirus listings are not sufficient to establish notability, and a search turned up no other significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. Esquivalience ^t 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While WP:INDISCRIMINATE properly concerns the structure of information and not whether we can have an article on a given topic, there is no evidence of notability in form of multiple reliable sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophers Behaving Badly[edit]

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

Not Notable Wikimostafa (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Mel Thompson / AfD and Nigel Rodgers / AfD, which all form a related group and may go the same way. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is notable. Few Iranian Wikipedia writers are avid to delete this entry and everything associated with it. This is the second time this discussion takes place.Esmatly (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's reviewed in Times Higher Education and Philosophy Now (see article), as well as Library Journal[6], the Birmingham Post (UK)[7] and apparently other places[8]. That seems quite good for a philosophy book, meeting WP:NBOOK. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no ground for proposed deletion. Esmatly (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 20 July 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) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Society of B.Tech Engineers[edit]

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

(self-)promo, seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if agreed that notability is not established; I'm not Pakistani or very familiar with engineering but my searches found nothing to suggest further sourcing but it's imaginable this would not be English. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the criteria at WP:ORG MarnetteD|Talk 13:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There has not been enough discussion after 3 weeks to come to a clear consensus. As a side note, if the article does not "claim the significance of the subject", then perhaps the A7 criterion of Speedy Deletion should be used. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eestairs[edit]

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

Does not credibly claim the significance of the subject. --Anar chyte 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft/userfy as my searches, unfortunately, found no outstandingly good coverage with the best here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the 1m2 staircase is unique and patented, see here and here for example. Staircases in general are installed all over the world. See here for good coverage. (The search of SwisterTwister searched for englisch coverage only because it included the word 'staircase', which excludes coverage in French, Russian, Italian, Chinese.) Peterposts talk 10:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Peterposts (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Peterposts: The TreeHugger link you posted seems like a press release or advert for it and I can't findw where it says EeStairs patented the 1m2 staircase in the link you provided. Ana r chyte 01:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:58, 14 July 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) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paisley Pipe Band[edit]

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

Grade 4/ NJ band - has had some competitive success in lower grades but has no significant coverage. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete simply because all my searches found nothing to suggest further coverage and, from the current articles linking to this, none of them are good targets. I'm Scottish so I don't know how others are familiar this band or its notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:58, 14 July 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) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan College Pipes & Drums[edit]

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

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence at all of notabillity. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:BAND. A PROD would have been more appropriate and have saved us this AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found no particularly significant coverage with this being the best. I would've also advised adding all these to one nomination and listing it all together rather than individually. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:58, 14 July 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) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Highland Pipe Band[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing particularly significant regarding coverage with the best here (and searching archives helped none here), here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 14 July 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 Vampire Game. Been up 2/3 weeks and both nom & !voter prefer redirect so redirect it shall be (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judal[edit]

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

Non-notable manga artist. All of her listed works on JA wikipedia are redlinked. Media Arts DB is not showing her in their database (apologies if I spelled her name wrong.) Suggest redirecting to the Vampire Game article, which is her most notable work and has an English Wikipedia article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vampire Game as suggested because my searches found no particularly significant coverage aside from this. Unless good Japanese sources exist which is possible but I'm not seeing the light here to further confirm this. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 14 July 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Lemley[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market radio personality, making no genuinely substantive claim of notability beyond the purely local and resting entirely on primary sources and blogs for "referencing". A broadcaster does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article just because you can point to his own website as proof that he exists — to satisfy our notability standards for broadcasters, a person has to either have a national audience, or be sourceable enough to pass WP:GNG. But neither of those conditions have been satisfied here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local radio personality with no claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 16 July 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Fife[edit]

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

Obscure, B-grade actress that fails all 3 criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER as well as WP:GNG The Dissident Aggressor 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing much coverage in my sweep of US national news or my sweep of entertainment media here. May change mind if new sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 14 July 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Wang (Angel Investor)[edit]

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

Un-notable person. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sources are listed and I would've suggested moving to ZhenFund and New Oriential but those articles also need better sourcing. I'm not a Chinese speaker so I can't help there but my searches also found absolutely nothing to suggest good sources or notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 12:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No article on ZHWP. Nothing for '"Victor Wang" +investor' on GNews or GBooks. Chinese name (zh:王強) is an extremely common name, not to mention also laced with the common-name meaning "king-strong". Including the name of the fund gives three GNews hits on the fund but all passing mentions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further into verious histories, creator User:IsabellaCai also created ZhenFund and Bob Xu which is closely related to this AfD's subject (the fund, and co-founder). If anyone feel like weighing this into their !vote so be it, but full disclosure that I did not consider this for mine. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard that you can pay to have an article about yourself on Baidu Baike thus that doesn't count as notable. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 00:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Well I didn't know about that rumor, but Baidu Baike being an openly collaborative wiki-like encyclopedia makes it fail WP:USERG already. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, WP:CSD#A7. Nobody wants the article kept and there's no point dragging this out any longer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarielle Alexis[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP save for an IMDB link. I declined an A7 because of a link to a possibly notable event, but I really don't think this person needs a mention on Wikipedia, and they might thank us for deleting it 25 years from now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible assertion of notability. Attending an awards show without being nominated doesn't count. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. No reliable source coverage found for WP:GNG, just routine press releases in the porn trade press. 30 porn films (57 per IAFD) do not make an exceptional career in porn. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gene93k. Not a shred of notability in the article. -- fdewaele, 14 July 2015, 20:42 CET

Speedy delete per WP:A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One reason for sending to AfD first is if it comes back again (as these things sometimes do), it can be stamped on via WP:CSD#G4 without too much argument. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes no where close to passing notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 15 July 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) 03:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carter (footballer born 1997)[edit]

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

Prod tag deleted without any explanation. Non-notable youth team footballer with no first team games whatsoever. Fails football notability and general notability guidelines. Egghead06 (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (after edit conflict). Subject fails the football-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully-professional league (the 14 appearances claimed in the infobox are presumably for West Ham's youth teams) and there's not enough media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. In addition, the prose content was entirely copy-pasted from his WHUFC Academy profile, so I've removed that as a copyright violation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability as he fails WP:NFOOTBALL (not played in any WP:FPL) and I can t see this youth player pass WP:GNG either. Qed237 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Fails NSPORT & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only an academy player. Delete and only re-made when/if he ever makes a first team appearance in the leagueThursby16 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 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) 03:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived crowding and shopping outcome[edit]

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a journal. --CutOffTies (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no context of what this is really about or why it is notable/encyclopedic. WP is not a webhost. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've declined a speedy A1 as the article is far from short, and does have context relevant to the title. However, it looks like an essay or dissertation and is not encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5 (User:Decentnil) Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decent Nil's Villa Road[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article fails to assert notability for this roadway, which appears to be an average street in an urban area. Claims that it is notable based on the residence of "Decent Nil" fail per WP:NOTINHERITED Imzadi 1979 → 08:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. Appears to be a part of a spamming campaign for a new website. Sjö (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence whatever of notability. (The article seems to have been created as a vehicle for linkspam, by a now blocked editor almost every one of whose edits contained a link to one website, and this article too included a link to that site.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom
Comment There should be a CSD for such spam articles.Sulabhvarshney (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G5 - obvious sock of User:Decentnil. Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Decentnil Bazj (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional mustelids[edit]

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

This list fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. It is also essentially unsourced fancruft. Consensus has always been that lists of this sort are untenable if the parent article (in this case Mustelids in fiction) would not be notable; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_weasels. Reyk _YO! 07:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are a ton of these lists, navigable from the template at the bottom. Lists of fictional bears, fictional raccoons, etc. It seems like per your argument, none of these should exist. I personally don't care either way but it seems like this needs to be dealt with as a whole. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the other articles and I do not think any of them should exist. There was a big cleanout of these terrible articles around 2010-2011 IIRC, but someone's gone and recreated them all again. If consensus is still that articles like this one should be deleted, then I will mass-nom the others. Reyk _YO! 08:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fictional animals/Animals in literature are legitimate categories, and this functions as a subdivision for ease of navigation. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's a book on weasels in culture, literature and art[9] and some stuff on otters in literature and cultural discourse[10][11]. There is more. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a threat of WP:I'll scweam and scweam and scweam until I'm sick. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the article, don't make mendacious attacks on the nominator. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh get over yourself. Do you have a policy-based reason why you want to delete this article, because so far it's all down to your personal opinion and nothing else. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case to be made for this article, List of fictional mustelids, to be deleted as poorly written and inadequately sourced – neither of which are policy-based reasons. However Reyk's rationale for deletion here seems to be much more about then setting a precedent (Which from WP:OSE et al. isn't a policy-based reason for working either) from which they have already threatened to start going after all related articles. That would include lists like the rather more substantial List of fictional badgers; the talk: page of which is worth reading BTW, for a rather long-running debate on inclusion criteria relevant to all of these articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find WP:V and WP:BURDEN are policy, so don't pretend that "unsourced" is not a policy basis for my opinion. You also seem to be saying that, if a bunch of cookie-cutter similar articles all suffer from the same policy flaws, it's inherently a bad thing to try to delete them all. There is nothing wrong with gauging community consensus on one of those cookie-cutter articles and then acting (or not) on the result. There's no need to insinuate some sort of malicious motivation on my part. Reyk _YO! 10:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fictional animals are quite notable - see Talking Animals in British Children's Fiction, 1786-1914, for example. As there are lots of them, it's then a matter of of how to divide them up. I'm not sure that the family of Mustelidae is the most common name for such but it's easy to find examples for particular types such as badgers and otters so that WP:LISTN is satisfied. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't simply a matter of how to divide them up. Each subcategory must have its notability proved independently, see WP:NOTINHERITED because the notability of the parent group can't be inherited to the subgroup. If the subgroup isn't notable, it can't have a standalone article. In this specific case you have a single source to prove notability of animals in fiction. The references you cited seem reliable but I dispute they are enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. AadaamS (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That source was just an example. Here are 10 more books of a similar sort:

What Animals Mean in the Fiction of Modernity
Animals in Young Adult Fiction
Talking Animals in Children's Fiction: A Critical Study
Animal Victims in Modern Fiction: from sanctity to sacrifice
The Animal Fable in Science Fiction and Fantasy
Victorian Animal Dreams: Representations of Animals in Victorian Literature and Culture
The Philosophy of the Animal in 20th Century Literature
Among Animals: The Lives of Animals and Humans in Contemporary Short Fiction
Reading the Animal in the Literature of the British Raj
Representing Animals

So, we see that there is a substantial body of scholarly work about this general topic. All that has happened is that, because there are numerous cases which are regarded as classics of literature, such as Aesop's Fables, Just So Stories, Tarka the Otter and Wind in the Willows, the number of animals of various types has caused the list to be split. If the level of splitting is not quite right then the remedy is to merge not to delete. This is our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew D., I have suggested in my "vote" that we merge to a new section of Mustelids named "in culture", below. I must also say that I am impressed with the hurricane of references you provided for the parent group animals in fiction. So you mean that several of these references have sections especially devoted to mustelids which amount to WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG? AadaamS (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is not a suitable topic for a list according to WP:SALAT. It should instead be made a section of the Mustelidae article like "Mustelidae/In popular culture" or similar. Not one single source of this article verifies the notability of "badgers & otters in fiction" as a group. AadaamS (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subdivision of Lists of fictional animals, which has plenty of sources (see Andrew Davidson) but would be too broad a list. I have no objection to further splitting into more common names (List of fictional raccoons, List of fictional badgers, List of fictional ferrets) instead. The Steve 08:52, 16 July 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, notability has not been confirmed by reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropic sun[edit]

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

No significant indication of notability. No comparable article in any other Wikipedia, including the languages where their "best known single" was a "big hit". Strong indication article was initiated by a member of the band. Risker (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-created article on completely non-notable defunct band by one of the band members, JoakimBang. Even their so-called "best-known single" doesn't come up in Google: [12] Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With the only remaining and best chance of surviving is finding good Danish sources, my searches found nothing good and it's unlikely this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers' Network[edit]

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

A monograph by an editor with no other contributions, flagged since creation as promotional, based on sources which do not seem to rise above the level of the trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. There are sources cited, some of them decent, but generally local-interest. A while back I removed large swaths of this article and tagged it as promotional, but refrained from nominating it for deletion due to the sourcing. Wikipedia will not be harmed if this article disappears, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and I would've said either draft/userfy or move elsewhere but there's no good target for this one; my searches found nothing outstanding with the best being this. Although the article is neat and sourced, this would've probably been best mentioned somewhere else until full notability and coverage is/was achieved. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Interesting local group, but does not seem to clear WP:ORG hurdles. References 1 & 4 - not about the subject, just one brief mention. References 2 & 8 (blog) - decent references. References 3, 5 & 6 - no mention of subject. References 7, 9 & 10 - short local event listings.--Rpclod (talk) 10:22, 14 July 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting non-admin close: The nomination calls for sources demonstrating notability. DES appears careful not to argue for keeping the article, simply backing up that declining the speedy was within the bounds. DES has also added some sources, but those sources are implicitly refuted by the nominator, and explicitly so by SwisterTwister. A good LONG time passed in which either DES or someone else could come and either make an argument that those sources weren't good enough or to provide new sources. It's a "delete as notability not verified". Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Films[edit]

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

Notability. I nominated this for a speedy delete, declined on the erroneous grounds that a Bafta makes a production company notable WP:NOTINHERITED & the unsubstantiated claim about a new animation technique. Which may not be notable: no evidence is produced that anybody has used it.TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that to survive A7 notability need not be demonstrated or even asserted, only a claim of significance which might lead to notability. That is why I declined the speedy. Note that claims need not be sustantiated or sourced to be enough to avoid an A7. I have to wonder about the amount of WP:BEFORE checking you have done on this. I added one source right after declining the speedy and expect to add others within the next day or two. I urge reading the linked essay before doing any more A7 tagging. DES ^(talk) 13:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete simply because it seems there's not even a shred of good third-party coverage aside from the current links; my searches found nothing particularly significant with the best results being...various websites here, listings here and simply mentions for Pinewood Studios here. SwisterTwister talk 19:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 14 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Homeschooling[edit]

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

Unneeded content fork. The existence of a separate "secular homeschooling" article would imply that homeschooling (without an adjective) is inherently non-secular (i.e. religious), but the existing homeschooling article gives no indication of that, and gives proper weight to the concepts of secular and religious homeschooling. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to homeschooling. Everything in this article would be neatly contained in the main article and can split out summary style if the section became too large for that article. Also the "h" in homeschooling should be lowercased by title conventions, and the article is very US-centric as it stands. – czar 21:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to homeschooling, going along with consensus. All I wanted to merge was [13], but someone can just add that to the main article on their own if they want. – czar 18:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not clear that there is a lot of validly sourced material to merge. I'm not entirely sure the article wasn't created merely as a coatrack for the links to the secular homeschooling website that its primary source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't a lot to merge besides the WaPo source. Still, "secular homeschooling" is a worthwhile search term for cheap redirection. – czar 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this is clear to me that it is an advertisement masking a fork by way of a coatrack. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am usually in favor of redirecting where there is a likely target, but I oppose a redirect or merge in this case. This title is inherently POV, seeming to imply that secular homeschooling is different from regular (i.e., religious-based?) homeschooling. As WikiDan points out, the current Homeschooling article is well balanced; a redirect or merge would create all kinds of POV assumptions and implications. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Secular homeschooling" is not any more inherently POV than fundamentalist Christian homeschooling. Both describe specific but major facets of current homeschooling, covered under the umbrella of homeschooling. They are both topics that readers will want to read about, have been covered in sources, and should be covered in an encyclopedia summary style. Simply redirecting the phrase to the major article implies no POV-pushing. – czar 03:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that there is a redirect from Christian homeschooling. In that case, a redirect from "Secular homeschooling" would also be acceptable. First it will be necessary to delete per G6 the existing page at Secular homeschooling, which is a redirect to Secular Homeschooling (magazine); then move this article to "Secular homeschooling" with a small H; then redirect it to Homeschooling. --MelanieN (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork of Homeschooling. Merge info if necessary. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since 60% of the references lead to secularhomeschool.com, it feels safe to say it is an advertisement. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:50, 22 July 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. I'm deleting this as G12 copyvio as the first revision of the article was copied from page 6 of Tourist Guide to Kerala, Motilal (UK) Books of India, resulting in just copyvio derivative now. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaakkarissi[edit]

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

Series that has no references or notability to be found at all Wgolf (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some mention of it in places like this, so it might be something that could be merged somewhere? I'll ask WP:INDIA for some help since I'm getting the impression that coverage will likely be in another language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there may be similar names out there like Kakkarissi Kali? This does look like it's fairly heavily performed in various folk art and culture festivals according to the various things I'm pulling up with a search, but I'm having trouble finding a whole lot. It also has some different spellings of the first word, which is posing an issue as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's mentioned in some depth here, but of course the pages we need aren't really available for us to read. (sighs) There are sources like this as well. Since this is somewhat dance related, maybe it can be merged into List of Indian folk dances? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 14 July 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.