Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 June	6 June >

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cuahutemoc Morfin[edit]

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

This does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. He is a past candidate for local and state legislative office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.141.33 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 23:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has run for local and state office, but never seems to have been elected to anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual with WP:POLITICIAN: Runner-up in a Chicago city council election and runner-up in a state legislative primary (not even the main election). No major coverage, just quotes to the media during community activism. --Closeapple (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 23:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merovingian (The Matrix)[edit]

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

This character does not demonstrate any notability to the wider world - there is a lack of critique of his role in the films and he doesn't seem to be important enough to have his own article. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. ansh 666 23:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series, excluding the plot details which are already included in other articles on the series: not notable. The article includes no references (at the time I write this). I found some discussion of him in reliable sources[1][2], but nothing in great depth. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in the Matrix series, per Colapenisula. No indication of notability or coverage from reliable sources. But does seem to be a plausible search term. mikeman67 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect per reasons already given. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of minor characters in the Matrix series, no significant or independent notability of this minor character, and does not meet WP:SPINOUT of any other article. Ghostwheel ʘ 03:12, 12 June 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. No delete votes remaining after 7 days (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sulev Mäeltsemees[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable academician and civil servant. Quis separabit? 23:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Estonian version of this article notes that it was taken from the Biographical Lexicon of Estonian Science from the Estonian Academy of Science and Technology, which has an agreement with the Wikimedia foundation to publish its biographies on Wikipedia. Therefore it would seem that he is considered notable within the Estonian community. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, pending:~~ Wikimandia, you're inferring again, and we just can't do that. You can't just assume that because information is taken from a particular book, a subject meets the requirements of the GNG. You have to demonstrate that with significant coverage in reliable sources. Since different Wikipedias have different standards, we likewise can't take it on faith that he's notable because he's got an article over on the Estonian Wikipedia. If we can get a source for his chairing the Tallinn City Council, that'd be a WP:POLITICIAN pass, but we do need that source. Ravenswing 06:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say his notability came from him having a profile on the Estonian Wikipedia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source: link, it's in English and reliable (the site is "established by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research in cooperation with ... (etc)"). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Your source is a CV that isn't, in fact, in English, but Google Translate handles Estonian, and it does support the claim that the subject was on the Tallinn City Council, which is a POLITICIAN pass. Good work. Ravenswing 05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I thought it would show the English version (because of the "&lang=en" at the end of the link) but there are "EST" and "ENG" buttons on the upper right corner of the site, the ENG button should show the English version. There's even a short bio/summary there about Mäeltsemees, that doesn't exist on the Estonian version. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 06:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not totally sure yet but the contents of the Estonian article seem to imply that he's notable, including the part about being a recipient of the Order of the White Star in 2002. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he only received the fourth grade of a five-grade order. We would probably not consider that to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. We certainly don't consider the fourth grade of five-grade orders in Britain to qualify (although the first three grades would) and I don't see why Estonia should be any different, given the Order of the White Star looks to be functionally identical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having said that, I think the combination of his posts and honours do just about push him above the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:POLOUTCOMES. He was Chairman of the city council of the capital city/largest city of a sovereign country, and lots of coverage in Estonian. Kraxler (talk) 00:55, 12 June 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regional varieties of Scottish English[edit]

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

The subject of this article purports to deal with varieties of a dialect (Scottish Standard English) but only contains usupported material about accent; not at all the same thing. The only reference deals with accent, not dialect, and doesn't support the premise of the article. I believe the creator may also be getting confused with the distinct dialects of Scots as opposed to the supposed regional differences of any significance (questionable) in the Scottish English form. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copied from Scottish English and Scotticism (CSD-A10), with some unsourced WP:OR added. Bazj (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 08:21, 6 June 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. with no prejudice against recreation as a non-POV/OR article. SpinningSpark 23:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uysyn[edit]

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

This article qualifies for deletion in many ways. It is first of all a POV fork of Wusun. While nominally about a modern sub-tribe of the Senior Juz of the Kazakhs, almost the entire article is a about the Wusun of the Han era. The article Uysyn was created by Barefact, who has created numerous similar POV forks before, like Masguts[3] and Kangly[4] both of whom have been deleted. On these articles false etymology is used to claim ancient origins for various Turkic tribes; the Wusun are supposedly identical to the Uysyn, the Kangju to the Kangly, and the Massagetae to Masguts etc. Many of the sources used are outdated works from the 19th century, or non-English sources provided without links that are very hard to verify. The most frequently used source is a certain work "Ethnic History of the Usuns" by Yury Zuev (the article on Zuev is also created by Barefact). Googling this work leads one to this blog (identical to turkicworld.org) Much of this article seems to have been copied from that blog, compare paragraphs about "outstanding historian" N.A. Aristov. This blog claims that Turkic people share common origins with not only Scythians and other groups considered Iranian by mainstream scholars but even Etruscans, Celts, Sumerians and Native Americans! It is utterly pseudoscientific. The blog also contains a separate "Wikipedia" section where articles created by Barefact that have been deleted are saved.[5] Wikipedia is accused of being dominated by "Iranian supremacists". It seems likely that Barefact has a close connection to this blog, if he's not actually the owner of it. He is probably thus using Wikipedia as a soapbox to promote his nationalist fringe theories. This qualifies the article for deletion as per WP:NOT and indicates that Barefact is not here to build an encyclopedia. The article also fails WP:N; searches for "Uysyn" yields no relevant results at all. In addition to the problems already mentioned, the article seems to be based on severe misreprentation of sources at worst, cherrypicking at best. A frequently used source is the work "History of the Hun People" by Lev Gumilev. Gumilev's work actually contradicts the basis of the entire article, as he writes that the Wusun dissapeared from history in the 5th century AD and probably became submerged into modern Tajiks (После этого почти исчезают упоминания об усунях, только под 436 г. сообщается, что под давлением жужаней усуни покинули родные кочевья и переселились в "Луковые горы" [13], т.е. в западные отроги Тяньшаня. К этому времени они стали так малочисленны, что на них никто не обращал внимания. Остатки их, видимо, ассимилировались с таджиками.).[6] Also see the chapter on the Wusun in the UNESCO published History of Civilizations of Central Asia, page 458-462, which like Gumilev state that the Wusun dissapear from history in the 5th century AD. No relation to a Kazakh sub-tribe is mentioned in any modern reliable source. It is quite shocking that an article like this has stood on Wikipedia for so long. Krakkos (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Krakkos (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Incoherent, impenetrable twaddle, the usual Turanist rubbish. The article is unsalvageable and pointless. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong keep, cleanup~~ This is a content dispute, not a notability issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, notability is not the major issue here. The main problem is that the article is a pov fork based on original research and unreliable sourcing created for soapbox purposes, as thoroughly explained above. It thus fulfills numerous sections of WP:DEL-REASON. Krakkos (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my opinion after trying to read other wikipedias. I immediately noticed that turkish and azeri artiles are about wusun; so I re-interlinked them. I have troubles with kazakh veriosn, but also have an impression it is basically about wusun, only with a bit more kazakh nationalist opinion. Also, reading around, it seems that there is no such kazakh tribe now. I found Сары-үйсін ("yellow Uysyn"), but no detail. So I guess cleanup no any time soon possibe, so deletion is an option, to avoid major confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would simply delete the Wusun part unless there are unambiguous sources linking the two. There won't be much left, but someone else can always rebuild the article. Hzh (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for recreation in a form that is not a violation of the POV and FRINGE policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. If it has any reliable content, those content should be used on the main article Wusun. --Zyma (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm confused here - nom claims "almost the entire article is a about the Wusun." The Wusun were a people who, according to all sources, disappeared/died out/were last heard from around the 5th century; however the article on the Usun/Uysyn discusses them going up until recent times. Therefore; the article does not appear to be about the same people. As Staszek Lem pointed out, this is a content dispute. If the issue is that Yuri Zuyev is not a reliable source, I don't understand the sentence that this article is about the Wusun. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from Wikipedia:POVFORK, this article has major issues concerning its references. Four Studies on Central Asia, by V.V. BARTHOLD, page 80, makes NO mention of the Uysun, page 81 however mentions them in brief passing but makes no mention of 3rd century BC(misrepresentation). Hans J. Van de Ven. "Warfare in Chinese History", Brill Academic Publishers, 2000, Page 118, makes no mention of the Uysun(misrepresentation), in fact, Ashina Helu revolted against the Tang, declared himself khagan of the Western Turkic Khaganate and was later defeated by Dingfang. "Reference" #7 is not a reference but simply a statement, "Tsilyan (Qilian/Kilian etc.) mountains is Richtgofen ridge in Nanshan mountains"(no source). China in Central Asia: The Early Stage: 125 BC - AD 23, edited by Anthony, page 145, makes NO mention of, "were among the people of the Usun state Zhetysu"(misrepresentation). I am curious where the creator of the article found, P. Pelliot, "A propos des Comans", Journal Asiatique, April–June, 1920, since it is not listed on JSTOR(unverifiable). All in all, judging from the outrageous amount of misrepresentation of the sources to write this "article", woven into the Russian/unverifiable sources, this reeks of original research. Just from checking the "sources" that can be checked, I believe this is not a viable article, it has sources taken out of context, sources that are not available even on JSTOR, blatantly misrepresented information and in fact has shown to be lying about what the sources actually state. No, there is no "clean up" that will fix this mess. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to Kansas Bear, I checked out Four Studies on Central Asia. On page 81, it says: “After this, the name of the Wu-sun as an independent people disappears from history. As is well-known, their name has survived only in the name of the great Qirghiz-Qaysaq horde (the Uysun).” Therefore, one can conclude that the Uysun 1) exist; 2) are a great Kyrgyz/Kazakh horde/tribe; 3) are indeed not the same thing as the Wusun, but apparently descendents or somehow related (as they take their name from them); and 4; this is well-known. So to me this supports this article existing. However, I do believe that Barefact, in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, cited Pelliot directly from Zuyev's work (which is available online here).—Мандичка^YO 😜 01:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you took the only verifiable source that actually mentioned the Uysun and stated what I already said, ignoring that it didn't support the sentence in question. Wow. Pity you didn't check the other sources. Undoubtedly highlighting source misrepresentation was the real reason you didn't. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Bear: I don't see why it matters that it didn't support the sentence in question; that the Wusun were around from the 3rd century BC is mentioned in multiple places and does not affect the notability of the Uysun. The creator of this article may have done shoddy, lazy or downright false referencing, but that doesn't mean the Uysun didn't exist or this is somehow a "fringe theory" as has been claimed. As for checking "the other" sources - why exactly would I need to do that? You did a good job of pointing out they suck. Vasily Bartold is, by all appearances, a highly reliable source; he wrote about the "well-known" Uysun as distinctly separate from the Wusun; why would I challenge him as a source? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"that the Wusun were around from the 3rd century BC is mentioned in multiple places and does not affect the notability of the Uysun", "I don't see why it matters that it didn't support the sentence in question..". Source misrepresentation? Sources that I have checked state Wusun, not Uysun. Sounds like you have proven this article is a mish-mash of switched names & terms, Wikipedia:OR, Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:POINT. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear: "Wusun" is the sinological transliteration of the people who disappeared in the 5th century; Uysun/Үйсін/Усун is the Russian/Kazakh etc word for "Wusun"; it's also the name for the modern Uysun people, who have apparently been hanging around much more recently. I'm sorry if that confuses you. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You did a good job of pointing out they suck." Actually, I thought the blatant source misrepresentation was clear enough. Such edits border on disruptive editing and should be addressed as such. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing should be dealt with at WP:ANI. It is not criteria for deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"but that doesn't mean the Uysun didn't exist..", I never said they did not exist. That strawman was created by you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, at AfD we are here to evaluate whether an article should be deleted or kept based on certain criteria. Misrepresentation of sources is not a reason for deletion, as long as suitable sources are available. If WP:RS support the Uysun existing and having a separate identity to the Wusun, which seems to me to be the case here, then the article should be kept. Please review the criteria for deletion at WP:DEL-REASON. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually in Barthold'd work, the mentioned p.81 has a footnote that says this opinion is inconclusive. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem, in my opinion the footnote on 81 is only in regards to identifying them as Qaysaq/Kazakh; notice its positioning; it's not at the end of the statement or after the word Uysun, just after "Qaysaq." Since he claims it is "well-known" it would seem strange to state it was at the same time "uncertain." Considering there are additional references to the Uysun such this one, I don't see why we should believe their existence is a fringe theory. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Üysin a.k.a. Usun or Wusun, is one of the founding boys(tribes) of Kazakhstan. along with Üysin, Kanglı, Argun, Kıpçak, Alban, Konra You can see it in historical documents, articles and poetry. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- yes? We get that they existed? The question is about the CFORK with Wusun. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You wish to keep Uysyn, while earlier blanking Armenian Genocide as "unnecessary".[7][8][9] Your interpretation of WP:N fascinates me. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was 12, by that time. If you like digging through, i suggest you Minecraft Without Envy Edition. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While you've probably grasped the futility of blanking you're still describing information on the Armenian Genocode as "not necessary" and "described excessively".[10] Your fascinating interpetation of encyclopedic relevance continues. Still 12? Krakkos (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a CFORK, created by a problem user based on dodgy sources. The article is at Wusun. After this, there can still be debate on the article title or possible split of the existing "Wusun" age within the normal editing process. Regarding the Uysun 1) exist; 2) are a great Kyrgyz/Kazakh horde/tribe; 3) are indeed not the same thing as the Wusun, but apparently descendents or somehow relate is not sufficient defence of the article as it stands. This is barely enough for a "Legacy" section under Wusun and a list entry in some "list of Kyrgyz/Kazakh tribes". The point is that the "Uysyn" article purports to be about some separate group, but then goes on to discuss the Wusun regardless. --dab (𒁳) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- merge-redirect — I took the liberty of looking at the article content and its sources, and removing all the material that was clearly off topic, pertaining to the Wusun. What remains is a very straightforward situation. The Uyshun are a subdivision of the Kazakh Senior juz. They first appear in Persian historiography in the 13th century. Some (Russian?) ethnographers have speculated that the name may derive from that of the ancient Wusun. Our Senior juz page has a list of clans, and may very well be expanded by substantiated additions. There are some bona-fide references in the Uysyn page as we found it, but these are Soviet-era ethnographic papers written in Russian, only accessible to us via dodgy English translation hosted on some cranky Turkic-nationalist website. It's enough to establish the Uysyn are a bona-fide subgroup of the Senior juz, so we can redirect the page there, and of course we should welcome any additions on their demographics etc. that is actually based on verifiable sources. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for taking the time to look at this. Zuyev's work is available at Suyun, which is not a "cranky Turkic-nationalist website" but by all appearances a neutral website devoted to studying the ethnicity and anthropology of the Bashkirs (correct me if I'm wrong). I also don't think there is a reason to discount things as "Soviet-era" (which produced a large body of useful information, especially in regards to ethnic studies of the Soviet Union) if they have not been replaced/refuted by newer, better sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems like the Suyun website is run by User:Bulat Muratov.[11][12] The "cranky Turkic-nationalist website" is run by article creator User:Barefact.[13] They are both Bashkirs and promoting work by the controversial Anatole Klyosov (see Russian WP).[14][15] I would not be surprised if Barefact and Bulat Muratov are somehow acquainted with each other. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Dbachmann for that excellent cleanup at Zhuz and related articles. Based on (unsourced) info at Zhuz it seems that the name Uysun has sometimes been applied to the Senior Zhuz. The article Uysyn has then appearently been a dual-CFORK of both Wusun and Senior Juz. I agree with you that a redirect to Zhuz is good solution. That would leave us with the Sary-Uisyn, which according to an earlier version of Zhuz is the smallest Zhuz tribe, and would probably fail WP:N. The current content of Uysyn is still problematic. Most the history section is about the separate tribe Dulats and based on an unverifiable source, while much of the rest is copied from Barefacts website; compare the nonsense sentence about "Alano-Toharian problems" of "Eastern Iranism". We are still dealing with an article obviously created for WP:SOAP purposes, and containing as Kansas Bear illustrated systematic WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (WP:NOTRELIABLE). I suggest WP:TNT could be applied by deleting the article and then creating a redirect to Zhuz. Krakkos (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have come to the same conclusion, Uysyn is an alternative name for the Senior juz. It was a weird conflation between Wusun (the ancient tribe) and Senior juz (the Kazakh group). The historical information is garbled and unreferenced, but I assume most of it has some sort of factual nucleus as it was clearly posted by an "insider" (I suppose it is even plausible that the name Uysyn continues the name Wusun, at least it seems some Soviet ethnographers have suggested this. It's just that, well, the name of the Belgians also continues that of the Celtic Belgae, and yet the article Belgians does consist of 80% unreferenced rambling about the Celtic Iron Age). Well, this is what the ethnic nationalists on Wikipedia always do. Then we spend hours of our time cleaning up after them, because if I learned one thing in a decade of this, being "ethnic" means you cannot grasp the concept of "encyclopedia" for some reason, and in the end we get abuse for writing the article on their precious tribe for them. It has been years since I last touched the administrative "user conduct" side of things, but I must say the fact that User:Barefact (who has been doing this, and only this, for years) has not been permabanned yet does not inspire confidence. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Dbachmann: Yes, this seems like another ethno-pov classic of using false etymology to claim ancient origins; i. e. Kurds are descended from Gutians (Kurdu?) and so on. Barefact of course has an additional motive in providing "evidence" that Kangju, Massagetae and Wusun were Turkic. Remember his article Scytho-Iranian theory. Barefact has done extensive damage to Wikipedia's Central Asian coverage and is a clear example of WP:NOTHERE. How he has avoided being banned is indeed a mystery. It seems like the Zuev work which Barefact used as the root source, has creatively combined every mentioning of names similar to Uysyn to create a comprehensive "ethnic history". These combinations seem spurious, i. e. the "Ushi" (allegedly Wusun) are supposed to have been expelled from Shaanxi by the Yuezhi in 410 BC (i have largely written the Wusun article and this expulsion isn't mentioned anywhere else). Appearently names resembling Uysyn are quite common in Central Eurasia; the table on "Uysyn appelations" in the History section insinuates that there are Uysyns also living in both the Caucasus (Nogais) and Siberia (Bashkortostan). Based on certain contradictions, i'm also unsure if the "Uyshun" mentioned in the 14th century Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani are the same as the Uysyn/Senior Juz. Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is the first author to mention the Dughlats (the leading Uysyn tribe). He refers to the Dughlats as a tribe from Mongolia and appearantly not as a sub-tribe of the Uyshun. The term Senior Zhuz is clearly more common than Uysun, while the Uysyn/Sary Uysyn are usually mentioned as a Senior Zhuz sub-tribe together with Dughlats, Jalairs etc. Given these contradictions and the fact that it has been contributed by Barefact, with all it's implicatations of OR and misrepresentions, i doubt much of the remaining content is salvageable. Krakkos (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:CFORK. Barefact has been known for many years to forge/manipulate historical information to suit his nationalist agenda. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty apparent it's not a content fork. Barefact's record shows he's created multiple articles on presumably notable topics that have not been deleted. If he's forging information this should be addressed at WP:ANI, rather than to delete articles he's created. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles Barefact created, like Masguts ("Turkic Masguts are descended from Massagetae")[16] and Kangly ("Turkic Kankalis are descended from Kangju"), were deleted as POV-forks.[17][18] Shortly after creating the article Uysyn ("Turkic Sary-Uisyn/Senior Zhuz/Uysyn are descended from Wusun"), Barefact recieved a long block for "content forking, NPOV violations, fringe theory advocacy."[19] Nobody is suggesting deleting all articles created by Barefact, only those that fulfill WP:DEL-REASON (WP:POVFORK, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOTRELIABLE). Krakkos (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is an OR mashup of two unrelated ethnes separated by an immense gulf, each of which already has their own article. Ogress _smash! 22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much of this article overlaps content in other articles; some small portion of the material might be used in Zhuz, but this article is difficult to follow even after all the recent clean-up; so I can't recommend merge, just delete - maybe with an 'alternate name' redirect to Zhuz? Ghostwheel ʘ 01:23, 14 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Edwards (author)[edit]

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

This article was deleted in 2014, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive). Winning an "honorary award" has not suddenly made this person notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you for posting the deletion debate, I had not read this before. Of course, a lifetime achievement award from one of America's most prestigious film awards is a little bit more important than you are letting on. And is directly in line for what qualifies someone for a Wikipedia page. Either way, as I said before: This article is not a replication of any previous article. Just having a previous deletion does not allow something to be deleted under this category. I have no idea who wrote the previous articles, but this individual is the winner of a lifetime achievement award from the Satellite Awards, which qualifies him under clause one of WP:ANYBIO, which states that someone is notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor". This person also qualifies under WP:GNG, as there are plenty of in depth articles about him that have been used to cite this piece. Please don't try to skirt Wikipedia policy just to get your way :) Usterday (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even bring in the writing awards and multiple producer-ships. I've read and re-read the deletion debate now that it is reposted, and I don't know what was up here before, but none of the comments match up to the current page. Usterday (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to me that the destiny of that article is linked to whether the Satellite Award is "well-known and significant". I tend to think it does not; the talk page raises some doubts but I could not check them. Tigraan (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I voted for deletion of the previous article exactly for this reason, Tigraan. I still can't find convincing evidence that a Satellite award confers notability. Jacona (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find 0 press coverage of the award, the book is published by a Vanity press, and the rest of the article is no different than the previous attempt. Passing mentions, non WP:RS sources. The only reasonably close RS was the New Orleans bit, but that didn't really have enough detail to count for much on notability, and it sounded like it was written from a press release (the author covers society stories in a small suburban area, so she really doesn't add much credence either). John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like I missed this. Either way, I have a question. If the Satellite Award is non-notable, why does this exist: Category:Satellite Awards? (I have to use single brackets so the Cats show up here and not at the bottom; search them and you'll see how extensive they are fixed that for you John from Idegon (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)). The category is in the Template:Film awards as well, along with all other notable national awards. Pointing to the poorly written Satellite Awards page is just bad research, if you are using Wikipedia as the sole point of reference. I mean, ever single ceremony has its own page: Category:Satellite Awards ceremonies. If that's not notable, really, what is? A single win under AnyBio makes the person notable. Period. Though I agree that the "author" title is probably bad, as he's not really a notable author at all. That I don't like. But all this nonsense about claiming that a Satellite Award isn't good enough for ANYBIO seems silly to me. Especially if it is a lifetime achievement award. That's likely the most important award they give out, no? If a Satellite Award isn't so important, we should next delete the template and the categories. No non-notable award should EVER EVER have that kind of presence on Wikipedia!!! Yogi Beara (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT Yogi Beara-I am guessing your comment is directed at the nominator, but my arguments were not speaking of the awards in general, just the particular award he was given. Kinda flies in the face of logic that an award given by a press association to a publicist got no press, doesn't it? It was not awarded at their award ceremony but at a private gathering. I don't think it is on the level of the actual awards at all. Add to that the basic dishonesty of titling the article "(author)", when his only book was published by a vanity press and it makes you wonder what the actual motivation for this vaguely defined lifetime achievement award actually was. I still hold that if no one talked about the award in a reliable source, it has no value to show notability. without that, there is nothing in the article to show notability at all. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keepfor reasons cited by Yogi Beara. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - rename? I looked at each of the references. #1 is a press release (not RS). #2 cannot establish editorial status of Slidell Independent #3, #11 IP award site - and I'd say that the award is significant. #5, #6, #9 - mentions, not RS. #7 about him, local paper but probably RS. #10, just separate page of photos from awards. His book is self-published and is not held in ANY libraries that show in Worldcat. So, I think he barely passes as a publicist with one award and one weak RS. The award seems significant within his field, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. However, he cannot be billed as an author since there is no evidence that his book was ever reviewed (not even Publisher's Weekly). "(Publicist)" is what he's called in the articles and the award. LaMona (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could concur with the rename as I had not realized the book was self-published. I stand by the WP:ANYBIO clause though, as there are plenty of people who have received ANYBIO qualifying awards that could not pass GNG, even if I believe this person can. A Satellite Award is similar to the other major US film awards, and as in-depth coverage is rare for every single win on every single awards show every year, if that were required for an ANYBIO award to ever count as asserting notability, then that part of ANYBIO would not make any sense. Or it would mention that it requires in-depth coverage on top of the win, making anyone who wins those kinds of awards in non-mainstream fields in danger of their award not counting as well. That just would not work. GNG exists to determine the notability of people who are not notable according to Wikipedia under any other category. It is not the superseding qualifier itself. Usterday (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Cindy Crawford book launch splashed up the internets. While the sourcing isn't copious, having authored a memoir that can be mined for detail is a big plus, moving forward. Not a slam dunk call either way, but I feel that this meets GNG by a whisker. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John from Idegon. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Based on the analysis of references by LaMona, I come away with a different conclusion, i.e. that it does not add up to a sufficient proof of notability (and, while I came to a different conclusion, I thank LaMona for putting in the time to do the detailed analysis). The big question here seems to be if the Satellite award is sufficient. I don't know if it is or not, but I do (firmly) disagree with the argument that it must be important because we have an article and category about it. We don't use our own articles as references, nor do we use our own articles as arbiters of importance. Primarily because of that, I'm going with delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This guy is a publicist. If he's notable, it ought to be clear and obvious.Jacona (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more of a forced bio of someone in Hollywood. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:48, 17 June 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boston leadership institute[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ormr2014 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omr2014, please, more info. Not all of us are mind readers. Why do you feel that way? Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of independent sources suggests that the subject fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletion is a drastic step. The article now has 19 references including links to feature articles on, and mentions of, the organization contained in such reputable sources as Johns Hopkins University, New York Times subsidiary about.com, Northeastern University Marine Science Center, and three local newspapers from top-ranked Boston area school districts. Moreover, there appears to be a double standard at work. A program in a comparable arena, Internal drive (Idtech) summer program, contain only one reference and four external links. No one is suggesting that article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.241.103.54 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comment immediately above this one. Be consistent. This article has room for improvement. Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cathy. What improvements would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.157.204 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it sounds like a promotional brochure. Postcard Cathy (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed, the article has 18 references, but they're soft as mush: a horde of blogposts, the subject's own website, local school sites, press releases, casual mentions and the like. What's missing is significant coverage from reliable media sources: while the wickedlocal.com is the home site of Gatehouse Media, which owns most of the small city dailies and weeklies in the region, the citation is to a two-article press release. The Citizen-Herald article is long, but that paper's a local tabloid weekly of the sort not generally held to meet WP:IRS, even if the article wasn't hosted on the subject's website.
Beyond that, it's written in a blatantly promotional style, and was created and has been edited by several SPAs, some of whom have commented here; I wonder if there's a COI issue at work. Ravenswing 06:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More inclined to delete and draft - I had been considering whether to comment but after performing some searches, it seems the amount of good sources for this may be less than shown. Searches at News, Books and Scholar found nothing significant and in-depth. The article is neat and sourced but there doesn't appear to be more sources aside from the current ones. SwisterTwister talk 16:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

′′′′′In response to suggestions by Cathy and Ravenswing, sentences that appeared promotional were re-worded and additional information is highly factual. Ravenswing and sistertwister both wanted more references from national and major news sources. References have been added for ABCNews, CBS affiliate WBZ, Nature, Sailing World, American Chemical Society, Chemistry and Engineering News, a Wikipedia article, and Boston Globe. Note at least one link to the organizational website is to enable a Johns Hopkins Imagine Magazine article pdf file to be read. References to local schools are to not only Dana Hall Prep School, but also to MIT, Northeastern University, and Yale which, although local to those from the Boston area, are world-ranked higher education institutions.′′′ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.37.223 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "sources" in the article are the subject's own website, directories, press releases, listings that do not mention this institution at all, and even other Wikipedia articles. Searches don't yield any coverage in RS. Kraxler (talk) 17:53, 12 June 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. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhojaraj Vamanjoor[edit]

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

Minor acting roles, subject fails criteria at WP:NACTOR, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable as evident by searches with only these results and his IMDb only lists a few roles. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge or Keep – Though the article is poorly sourced and written, the subject of the article is a notable Tulu artist. Devadas Kapikad, Naveen D Padil, Aravind Bolar, and Bhojaraj Vamanjoor are commonly known Tulu artists, though the details about them on internet are comparatively low, and it will better that Wikipedia may have articles on each of them. If we cannot save the article from deletion, at-least there shall be some information in other page like Tulu cinema. (harith (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The references suggest that the subject could be notable and interesting. But the article needs a LOT of work.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references talk about the movies, and just list the subject as acting in them, presumably as part of a comedy trio or in a supporting role, never being the firts name of the cast list. The sources don't say anything about the actor, though. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, despite being a "renowned comedian". Kraxler (talk) 18:07, 12 June 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 00:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BluGem Communications Ltd[edit]

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

The company has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. All the sources in the article are affiliated with the subject. Finally, a search results mostly non-independent sources and company profiles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was updated taking into consideration the comments and guidelines from Wikipedia. There are no links to the company's website, many keywords in the article are linked to other wikipedia articles and all references are external to the company and are verifiable. Please contact me if there are any concerns. Sdose (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have failed to find any significant mentions in reliable sources. Although Blugem Equity seems to pass WP:GNG, Blugem communications does not. The best source I could find was this trivial mention of them getting investment funds. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests that WP:ORGDEPTH criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly draft - Searches at News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary only found some News results but nothing significant. SwisterTwister talk 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "sources" in the article are primary sources only, searches turn up directory entries and trivial mentions. Kraxler (talk) 18:21, 12 June 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) 07:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop & Replay Records[edit]

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

After several source searches, this record label does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are good Italian sources (though unlikely for a small and recent label) my searches found nothing to suggest good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 6 June 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 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asghar Adam Ali(Al Attar)[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability. Most sources in article relate to the subject's company rather than the subject. Jbh ^Talk 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article reads like self-promotion written by a publicist, just like the only article the discusses the subject in any detail. No notability is shown.--Rpclod (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless there are more sources non-English and offline (though this last one is especially unlikely), there's not much for solid notability and my searches only found this and a few more here. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources can be found to demonstrate the notability of the subject after my own and other's searches. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:19, 8 June 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) 20:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaclav Zizler[edit]

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

does not meet notability criteria in WP:GNG and also does not meet WP:ACADEMIC --MATThematical (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar (for author:v-zizler) shows citation counts of 923, 229, 160, 144, 131, etc. For a low-citation subject (pure mathematics), this is a lot, enough I think to pass WP:PROF#C1. He also has multiple books with multiple in-depth published reviews, possibly enough for WP:AUTHOR, and the article (which has been significantly improved since nomination) now also includes a national award of unclear significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find David Eppstein's evidence above to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 11 June 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 Indian_Idol#Season_1. – czar 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Sana[edit]

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

Fails musician's notability guideline. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Indian Idol (season 1) as he is best known for that and seems to not have established a full career yet with results here and here being the best of my search (all for Indian Idol). SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Idol (season 1). Subject is still struggling to make something out of his TV appearance. Web search turns up sales outlets pushing his records and youtube videos, news and book searches turn up nothing. Kraxler (talk) 16:31, 13 June 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) 19:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2005 United Kingdom snow events[edit]

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

I think this article fails WP:INFO. This article lists all of the snow events in the UK in 2005. I think these events are unnotable, and if some of them are notable, they would require a separate article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It is actually well written, almost enjoyable to read, for something that is no more than a mix of the weather report and some minor weather related events. But it is no more than a weather report. - Nabla (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One day, we'll all be asking what "snow" was. I don't think we need to save undigested blobs of trivia to answer the question. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is an old article that is written in a very dull manner and is poorly sourced (only to statistics). According to article, 2005 was the snowiest year on record in the UK, tied with 1876. Articles based on unusual meteorological seasons are worthy of GNG IMO - see 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. If the snowfall that year broke numerous records, it should meet GNG (presuming significant coverage). —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG - Admittingly it needs improving but that can be fixed any day. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unusual weather weather events and patterns can merit there own articles and pass WP:GNG per Wikimandia and Davey. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:FIVEPILLARS, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia incorporates elements of almanacs, which is the type of content this article consists of. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to favor deletion at this point keeping open the possibility that the subject could satisfy notability guidelines in the future. —SpacemanSpiff 07:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Althaf[edit]

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

Actress who falls under way too soon-only 2 roles so far. Wgolf (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability guidelines, contradicts itself about the subject's age (16 or 19), and seems to be written by a fan. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though the subject had an important role in only 1 film, she has been a "popular" TV anchor. Almost all of these were Malayalam language shows and sources would be found in the same language.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Mariyam Mukku (seems she had a bigger role here) - As evident with only two roles, my searches only found some News links but nothing to suggest independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, one co-starring role in a not so successful movie, unsourced BLP (only "source" given is a deadlink), fails WP:NACTOR. She's 16 and may some day be notable, but it is definitely WP:TOOSOON, despite promoting her film appearance and getting another role. Kraxler (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Radheshyam Bhagwandas Somani[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography. No indication of notability, no reliable sources provided. Two previous PRODs were removed without explanation by page creator. mikeman67 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page appears to be self-promotion. Two references are the subject's own LinkedIn page and a similar self-written bio. The third and last reference is a speech given by the subject. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless improvement is made. My searches found nothing outstandingly significant (even nothing at Scholar) and maybe it's the language and country barrier but there's nothing to suggest good coverage (I'm not familiar with those awards enough to say). SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find a few papers which were cowriten by "Amit Radheshyam Somani", who may or may not be the same person, I couldn't tell. However they did not show notability. When one of the main sources for an article is a linked-in entry, the person is unlikely to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are inadequate to document a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 9 June 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) 07:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fernandes (author)[edit]

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

No sources provided, no indication of notability. mikeman67 (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references at all, let alone any that are reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found no good coverage unless they're in French but even the French Wiki article needs improvement so I'm not sure. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 6 June 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) 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CJLD-FM[edit]

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

The source verifies hardly any of this article. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A licensed station, so we keep it under WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. And news coverage exists, for example [20][21][22][23][24]--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then why not bung it in the bloody article then!

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if I did think it needed improvement, I would probably not have nominated it for deletion. Ciao. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Arxiloxos. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sufficient third-party coverage exists for this article to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I updated the article with some more references, updated the infobox, lede and the entire body of the article. The schedule was in violation of WP:NOT#DIR, so I put that in text. I added one of the links Arxiloxos posted. There wasn't a need for the others. In addition to WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, the article now more-than-meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing improvement was definitely needed here, but the only claim of notability a licensed radio station has to make to be kept on here is the fact that its existence as a licensed radio station is properly sourceable. The needed improvement has taken place, so keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 10 June 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) 07:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Wrestling's Greatest Matches[edit]

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

Based on one source which is not WP:RS- the fact that it was cancelled does not bode well for the article's possible expansion. Effectively, two-line TV trivia. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reference talks about the show being cancelled. No suggestion of notability given.--Rpclod (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is more substantive information about the show in the Impact Wrestling and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling articles. Its only real claim to notability is being pulled from the Destination America line-up with Impact Wrestling: Unlocked.LM2000 (talk) 05:45, 7 June 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 23:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forumosa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one reference is the subject's own about page and the other two are dead. (Even if live, they are another of the subject's pages and a blog. Neither would be authoritative.)--Rpclod (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears unlikely this website is notable to Wiki standards as the best results I found were this and this. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication in the article why it should be notable, discussion forums are pretty much run-of-the-mill nowadays, I suppose. Kraxler (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imthiyaz Mohammed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; only sources are a blog and Youtube. Possibly WP:TOOSOON may apply. But not yet. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only references are by the subject and are not authoritative sources.--Rpclod (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to suggest moving to We Are Friends (film) for now as searches obviously found nothing to suggest notability (there isn't even an IMDb page) and the current sources aren't exactly great but I realize that film may not be notable as well so it's probably better to delete. SwisterTwister talk 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He had the lead role in a not particularly notable film, but seems not to have been in anything else. If this is a start to a career he may be notable some day, but that day is not today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 7 June 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 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fedelma Ní Ráighne[edit]

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

effectively unsourced BLP. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 19:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article provides no indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lcaim to differentiate him from any other TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She's not notable.--Dmol (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Snappy (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Unfortunately, she has not received good coverage even in the slightest and the only possible move target is Continuity (broadcasting) but it's not the best option. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Borderline case, but Ní Ráighne is not in the same notability category as say Síle Ní Bhraonain who as had several newspaper articles and presented full shows. Google news search returns no articles and google search of web is mostly social media. BTW - User:Johnpacklambert "He" is actually a she. Reggiegal (talk) 04:11, 9 June 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) 07:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Lodges in the State of Wisconsin[edit]

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

Listcruft, WP:POINT. Direct dump of information from source website here. Same information was removed from Grand Lodge of Wisconsin here. User was informed in the edit summary that we do not deal with this level of detail in Grand Lodge articles. Apparently it was re-added elsewhere as a new article because "the information is not freely available and has to be taken 25 entries at a time." There are also other miscellaneous issues with the title and classification, but I will deal with those later if need be.MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The fact that information exists, even if verifiable, does not necessarily merit inclusion in a legitimate encyclopedia. No evidence that the group or set is independently notable per WP:LISTN.--Animalparty-- (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration Considering the WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines, would the precedent also be set for the removal/deletion of the following as well? List_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges Grand_Lodge_of_Texas#Early_Texas_Lodges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Termanader (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Those are not germane to this discussion. Additional short answer to preclude any action thereon is that the notability of those items has been established one way or another previously. MSJapan (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NOTDIRECTORY has been mentioned already, this list is utterly useless, the members should know where their lodge is located. Kraxler (talk) 18:39, 12 June 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) 07:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual Weekly News[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well-known in the region. The newspaper is regularly delivered to the Starbucks bottom rack and has hosted events with hundreds of attendees. The owner ran for City council this last year and was plastered all over the media and its original ownership was born out of El Concilio which is a multi-million dollar non-profit in the Central Valley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.180.170 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not WP:INHERITED Kraxler (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could be providing link spamming, especially for graficadesign and Mr. Acevedo. Also seems to be an ad or self-promotion. Numerous references to LinkedIn entries are not authoritative and should be removed. None of the references discuss the subject and indicate that it is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --12.180.133.18 (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local newspaper. Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 12 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Junkbuster[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable, essentially defunct mediasite. Quis separabit? 02:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, although this received attention as shown here, here, here and here but nothing significant and notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The IJB is historically important. Besides that, it's been extensively discussed and recommended in many books on Internet security and privacy, some of which can be seen on Google Books, such as [25], [26], [27], etc. Also: review in InfoWorld, review in Chip, and review in iX. More coverage via this article in Heise.de among other hits from the same domain. I could find more, I'm sure, but I'm satisfied with what I've already found. Three reviews in reliable sources should be enough to establish notability even if you discount the dozens of books that discuss it in less depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While IJB may be historically important, nothing indicates that it is notable. If authoritative references were to critically discuss the subject, I might think otherwise.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rpclod: Excuse me? It's got three in-depth reviews in reliable sources. What kind of authoritative references are you looking for? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on notability, but if deleted, could redirect or partly merge to Privoxy, a successor product which mentions the IJB. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NinjaRobotPirate. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Privoxy - obsolete software version, got reviewed in related sources, promoting the subject, but did not attain notability, should be mentioned as the basis from which Privoxy was developped. (It is already mentioned there, expanding just a little may be helpful.) Kraxler (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title is reviewed in detail in this issue of InfoWorld. It also has more than passing mentions in numerous books [28][29][30][31][32]. I would also be OK with a merge provided that the material is fully WP:PRESERVEd. SpinningSpark 19:56, 16 June 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 Power_Rangers_in_Space#Characters. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selwyn Ward[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Notability unclear. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Power_Rangers_in_Space#Characters of course as another actor best known for the series particularly that show because it has the most episodes at 43. Searches found results here, here and here but nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Power_Rangers_in_Space#Characters per User:SwisterTwister: plausible search term for diehard Power Ranger fans, but overall, subject lacks other significant roles or coverage to merit WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:06, 12 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have walked across Tasmania, Australia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia - of local interest only. As Tasmania is 320 kilometres (200 mi) across, walking across it (while admirable and certainly impressive) does not have the same significance as walking across a continent or large country IMO. - —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The circumstances surrounding this article are different from List of people who have walked the perimeter of Tasmania, Australia. That was a single-person list; this list has seven people on it, so WP:COATRACK shouldn't apply. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed WP:COATRACK. Now it just needs to meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 20 citations on the article. Surely this would meet GNG? Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable achievement. Transcontinental walk, List of people who have walked across the United States and Australia okay, but Tasmania? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Clarityfiend: Is this your personal opinion? Many reliable sources have reported about people who have performed this activity. No offense intended, but your rationale comes across as rather subjective. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I could compile an equally well-sourced List of people who have swallowed goldfish: e.g. Lothrop Withington, Jr., Gavin Hope and Rachel Carey in 2014, etc. Walking 200 miles is trivial, something that most people could do without great difficulty, just like goldfish swallowing. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if Tasmania had a lengthier diameter, than it would be all right? E.g see List of people who have walked across Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I also see that one person walked a mere 255 km in 20 days. That's an extremely leisurely pace. If practically everyone can do it, it's not a noteworthy accomplishment. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I support the reply. Close examination of the two articles, the style and the manner created suggest that the limited understanding of WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT, and an even closer examination of the details walk across, and walk perimeter descriptions are misrepresentations of the actual events, and should not be accepted as valid reasons for articles, as hundreds of people do similar things without the publicity on a regular basis User:JarrahTree 02:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both articles are problematic - not for the reasons given above, the least being Tasmania, Australia is not found in local usage for a start. Recentism, non encyclopediac, and ahistorical come to mind, I have edited articles about people who did such things in Tasmania 100 and 130 years ago, - they are not on the list.- some of the claims in the article are open to question, as it attempts to make the Tasmanian component of Australia traversing as a separate subject - parts of this article should be salted into an Australian traversal article instead User:JarrahTree 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @JarrahTree: If the article is deleted, then parts of it won't be easily merged into an an Australian traversal article, as you suggest above. Regarding the title, the article has already been renamed to List of people who have walked across Tasmania. If the article is incomplete, it can be expanded by copy editing it. How does this article not meet notability guidelines? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - it is a soapbox article if you didnt realise, it is not something real in the historical or contextual sense, it can be easily incorporated into an Australian traversal article, there is nothing completable about it - there have been 1,000s of people in the strictest sense who have done more than what this article claims, it is not notable as it simply is people who have actively sought publicity about walking on roads around the island, nothing to do with really walking across the island. I would seriously consider it a hoax article with its current title as it has no idea of the island or its geography. Keep argument really has been taken into the crap about self promotion, you should consider what a con you have been caught up with. The title is so wrong it is unbelievable in the sense of Tasmania and its history, it should be salted into Australian traversal and got rid of as soon as possible, it is embarrassing to anyone like myself who has both lived and walked parts of Tasmania User:JarrahTree 23:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination is quite subjective and based upon personal opinion, rather than the depth of coverage in reliable sources, and I wholly disagree with the notion of the topic being "of local interest only". Defining an island state as "local" is problematic from the start. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, the overall topic has an enduring historical significance as evidenced per ongoing coverage in reliable sources, and the topic has been widely covered in diverse sources. Also, subjects in the list appear to be notable for one event per WP:BLP1E. Regarding such articles, WP:LISTPEOPLE, (part of the Manual of Style for stand-alone lists) states (underline emphasis mine):

“

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.

”

Furthermore, per WP:BIO1E (underline emphasis mine):

“

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

”

Essentially, this qualifies as a stand-alone article per WP:EVENTCRIT, as well as the rest of all the above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Northamerica1000. Having a deletion rationale based on "of local interest only" is not a valid reason for deletion and a very, very poor argument. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:-I would have to agree with Northamerica1000, they buttress the point I was about to make on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name if this is not going to be deleted, as the comments are apparently ignoring the historical and contextual issues - suggested re-name is People who have included Tasmania in Australian traversals would be far more in line with a keep than the current title which is so unencyclopediac it makes one wonder JarrahTree 01:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable notability guideline that nobody has brought up is WP:NOTESAL, which would require substantial RS coverage of people who have walked across Tasmania as a group or set, not just of individual walkers. I don't see any such coverage. Toohool (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 200 mile walk is nice but doesn't really rate an entry. Else we would have people who hiked the Appalachian Trail or completed the HURT 100. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge with Ashwell, Hertfordshire. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westbury Nernewtes[edit]

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

A manorial title that, according to the listed sources (this one in particular) no longer has any actual manorial property attached. No indications that this particular title is in any way notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable please look at [[33]] The National Manorial Register for England and Wales. It is the wish of ‘The Manorial Guild’ to list all Lordship Titles held in Private Ownership.In order to inform everybody, Who is the Current Legal Owner of these Lordship Titles.Westbury Nernewtes (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)— Westbury Nernewtes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act, 1925" please also look at LANDED GENTRY REGISTER as all registered with them too, it is notableWestbury Nernewtes (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Westbury Nernewtes, please read WP:GNG for the notability criteria required for any Wikipedia article to exist. You should also read WP:NOTDIRECTORY to realise that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium for organisations. So if The Manorial Guild want to publicise, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nominator, a title that existed in the 14th century, but no longer has land is obscure, and not notable enough for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an active discussion here that may interest you. I do share the concerns about notability. --Drm310 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I have deleted information, just about Westbury Nernewtes Manor, so no rules broken about nobility, hope this will help.Westbury Nernewtes (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can see, the "National Manorial Register for England and Wales" is not a reliable source. And they can wish to include as much as they want, as long as they follow our guidelines, such as WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @Randykitty: I believe you have misinterpreted the statement about the "Manorial Guild's wish to list all titles..." The editor was not stating a plan that this organization wishes to list all titles here at Wikipedia, but rather that they have stated on their own website that they wish to list all titles (presumably, on their own website). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I understand your comments I hope we can resolve this problem, many thanks for all your input.Westbury Nernewtes (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe there is enough sourcing to sustain a stub article about this ancient (and no longer existent) manor. Failing that, maybe a redirect to Ashwell, Hertfordshire. As for the Manorial Registry, it is irrelevant IMO; all it lists is the names of people who have purchased the right to use a particular title. That appears to be of great interest to User:Westbury Newnewtes (see their userpage) but is of no interest to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of Westbury Nerneswtes in http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/herts/vol3/pp199-209 (A History of the County of Hertford: Volume 3. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1912.).
Here is a quote from the book (with the mentions of "Westbury Nernewtes" bolded):
The subsequent descent of this manor is very difficult to trace. Setting aside the references to the manor of Westbury Nernewtes (of which the descent is given below) there is no record of it until 1606, when James I granted 'a messuage called le Westbury' to Thomas Norwood, (fn. 58) who was already possessed of the manor of Westbury Nernewtes. In 1664 a conveyance of Westbury was made to Elizabeth Sone, widow, by Thomas Bromfield, Laurence Marsh and a number of persons who were evidently co-heirs. (fn. 59) In 1678 a settlement was made by Richard Hutchinson, (fn. 60) in whose family it remained (fn. 61) until at least 1728, when Salmon writes that 'the western part of this manor (Westbury) is a farm of Sir Richard Hutchinson's, which holds of Sir George Humble,' (fn. 62) the Humbles, as hereafter shown, being at this date owners of Westbury Nernewtes. Subsequently it passed to the Leheups. William Leheup was holding in 1779 (fn. 63) and Michael Peter Leheup in 1809. (fn. 64) Westbury Farm still remains a property quite separate from the manor of Westbury Nernewtes (see below). It is situated on the west of the village. Westbury Farm has a homestead moat.
The Buckinghamshire family of Nernewt (Nernuyt) held land in Ashwell in the 14th century which was probably originally part of the Abbot of Westminster's manor. (fn. 65) This land became the manor of WESTBURY NERNEWTES. In 1340 Sir John Nernewt of Burnham and Fleet Marston, Bucks., settled 'two thirds of one messuage, two mills, 40 acres of land, 10 acres of meadow and 18 marks' rent in Ashwell and Hinxworth' upon his son and heir John, (fn. 67) whose daughter Elizabeth, wife of John Hertishorne, inherited the property. (fn. 67) John Hertishorne (together with two others, presumably his feoffees) was holding 'half a fee in Ashwell which John Nernewt lately held there' in 1428. (fn. 68) The Nernewt property is said to have passed by female line to the Harveys, and on the death of Sir George Harvey (before 1520) to have been purchased by the Lees. (fn. 69) This descent is doubtful, but the Lees did acquire possession of Westbury Nernewtes. In 1540–1 a conveyance by Richard Heigham and his wife Mary, Thomas Colt and Thomas Lysley was made to Anthony Lee, kt., of a moiety of the Buckinghamshire manors and of the manor of Westbury in Ashwell. (fn. 70) After this the connexion with Buckinghamshire ceases. In 1557 this manor (henceforward invariably called Westbury Nernewtes) was conveyed by William Hawtrey and Agnes his wife to Thomas Norwood, (fn. 71) son and heir of William Norwood of Ashwell. Thomas was succeeded at Westbury Nernewtes by his son Nicholas, and Nicholas by his nephew Tirringham Norwood, who in 1611 sold this manor to Edward Waller alias Warren. (fn. 72) Chauncy says that Edward Waller conveyed it to Andrew Laut, citizen of London, whose son Andrew Laut (of Thorpe Underwood, Northamptonshire) was lord of the manor at the date of writing (1700). (fn. 73) The marriage of Sarah daughter and co-heir of Andrew Laut to Sir John Humble brought Westbury Nernewtes to the Humbles. (fn. 74) Elizabeth Humble, daughter-in-law of Sir John, who survived both her husband and her only son, bequeathed this property by her will of 1758 (proved in March 1770–1) to her brother the Hon. Charles Vane, (fn. 75) from whom it passed in 1789 to John Pennell, and on the latter's death in 1813 to his daughter Margaret, the wife of Bernard Geary Snow of Highgate. On the latter's death the manor went to his widow for life, and after her death was divided among his children by Margaret Pennell and by a former wife. Henrietta, a daughter of the former marriage, died unmarried, leaving her share of the property to her betrothed, the Rev. J. B. Smith. Anna Maria, a daughter of the Pennell marriage, married Mr. Edward King Fordham of Ashwell Bury, who bought up all the shares of the manor (including Smith's) excepting that of the Rev. John Pennell Snow, an elder brother of Anna Maria. This latter share (one-sixth) was bequeathed by Mr. Snow to Rupert Donald Fordham, who sold it to Mr. Edward Snow Fordham, who had already (in 1889) inherited the remaining five-sixths of the manor from his father and is the present lord of the manor. The tenants are, however, nearly all enfranchised and the manorial rights have lapsed. (fn. 76)
There is also significant coverage of the subject in http://stalbanshistory.org/documents/1885.04.pdf.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Westbury Nernewtes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ashwell,_Hertfordshire. It's not that this information doesn't have a place in WP, it's just that it appears that there isn't enough to say for it to have its own article. There's nothing in the sources about the "Manor" other than its ownership history, which reads like a series of begats and deed transfers. It could, however, be considered a significant Ashwell-related place. There is information in that article about the village of Ashwell but no section relating to the civil parish, which could be a new section and could include the information about the existence of this property. LaMona (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ashwell, Hertfordshire. There is sufficnet evidence that the manor exists/ed. We encourage artifcles on every village, but I do not think that can descend to every manor, as some will have ended off a a single farm. The manorial documents register will merely indicate that the manor existed and where the manor rolls are (or were when last heard of). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 6 June 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 23:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Partners LP[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability. Many refs but most just confirm that the company exists and are directory or similar listings. Others are peripheral. None demonstrate the company is notable . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella, I see you nominated this article for deletion while it was already nominated before and finally stayed online. The company is part of the biggest telecommunication actors in the United States with influent and reliable sources for justification. I am presently trying my best to update it with trustworthy content and I therefore don't see any reason why you should do this! Best regards, Erica Remaley (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ [34], [35] and [36] show some notability. Plus some of the subscription-required ones looked like they were good and about the company. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage in reliable sources is superficial. There does not seem to be any indepth coverage about the company, it's history or anything other that brief mentions of some deals. It may be an important company, but it obviously operates behind the scenes. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- Mr X 14:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There is some notability, per the links provided above. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (Striking comment by blocked sockpuppet. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On reflection, those sources don't show quite enough WP:ORGDEPTH to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are common corporate database entries and articles regarding 2 deals in which the subject has engaged, but without discussing the subject in any detail. Nothing suggests WP:ORGDEPTH criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:44, 6 June 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) 07:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trialectics[edit]

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

All of the articles in the bibliography are from the official website. I can't find anything to support WP:GNG. Seems like it falls under WP:ONEDAY. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 16:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom about notability issues, and even just reading the article it's almost entirely composed of business jargon / puffery, ie "promotes integral development", "attend the requirements of an intelligent community", etc. Pishcal — ♣ 17:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote one man's new vision of the world. Kraxler (talk) 01:06, 12 June 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) 07:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Barons[edit]

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

Non-notable indoor American football team that played half a season in 2011. I'm not finding enough sources that would make this team pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 16:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 16:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 16:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, even link to club's webpage is dead Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. ~~If the above reasons weren't enough, they also clearly do not meet WP:NSPORTS.~~ Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 17:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bordwall: I appreciate the concern, but WP:NSPORTS doesn't cover teams. See Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Teams. Tavix | Talk 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Oh! I'd never noticed that line. Thanks for the heads up! Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 17:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've made that same mistake before too. It just doesn't seem intuitive to have teams under WP:ORG and not WP:NSPORTS. I understand why though, and am not too concerned either way. Cheers, Tavix | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable minor league football team that never played a regular season game. Fails the notability guidelines for sports teams and other organizations per WP:ORG and WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jlin (musician)[edit]

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

no indication of notability. fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability criteria. Should removed under WP:A7. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC through non-trivial, independent coverage in reliable sources, some of which are already contained in the article. In addition, it has been written that "footwork might have just found its new pioneer", which indicates that the subject of the article may also meet NMUSIC #7. — sparklism ^hey! 17:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Subject has been covered in independent sources, but very trivially. This this were the only sources I could find that provided non-trivial coverage, and I don't think this is enough to prove that this person is notable. Pishcal — ♣ 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 17:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is easily adequate enough to satisfy the GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above Pitchfork, Fact, and Vice articles are reliable, independent sources dedicated to the subject and sufficient significant coverage for the general notability guideline. – czar 02:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Czar. Coverage at sites such as these demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 21:24, 9 June 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) 07:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Țepeș Greuruș[edit]

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

Let's start by running through the sources - only, for obvious reasons, I'll skip the links to Wikipedia and Commons.

A list of teachers from Neamț County; I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove
The site and a description of a high school in Gheorgheni; again, I don't know the relevance of this
A brochure about a high school in Copșa Mică; likewise
Actually, this is getting boring, so I'll skip the stuff that doesn't even mention the subject: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
Which leaves us with this, a document in which the subject declares his financial and real estate holdings. Every Romanian government employee, all 1,362,000 of them, has to submit such a form, so that's not exactly evidence of notability.
And this, which informs us that the subject was founding president of the Neamț County chapter of the Association of Romanian Scientists (not to be confused with the Romanian Academy). Interesting, but not particularly evidencing any sort of notability: it's a fairly minor organization, and in any event, the information is included on the organization's own site (so doesn't come from an independent source).

When all is said and done, this guy was a factory director and a high school teacher. An interesting career, no doubt, but in no sense worth including in an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His work in chemistry was not notable. Nothing to distinguish him from the thousands of others who hold PhDs in chemistry. The one place he might pass is as a writer, but there is no indication his works are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several publications and several patents are not enough, in the absence of other evidence, to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Should have dug deeper. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Buzz[edit]

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

I'm amazed this managed to survive as long as it did. Cannot find any indication that this is any more than a small-time operation. Primefac (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are multiple resources about this energy drink in internet. It is sold in some shops. Why not? Maybe it should be expaned, updated or improved in someway, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one source so far, I may look for more later. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also more independent coverage, although unclear if that can be worked into the article (The Link, Montreal) Dl2000 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article had several reliable secondary sources until a WP:COI wiped those out. The misguided and counterproductive COI attempts at "improving" the article should admittedly have been dealt with earlier. While the product's heyday seems to have passed, there are probably more refs out there than those listed to support a notable presence. Dl2000 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation if and when Buttles plays a snap in the NFL. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Buttles[edit]

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

Not actually played an NFL match, and only routine coverage. Fails WP:GRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Routine coverage, perhaps, but the article meets basic WP:BIO requirements, and he was (for better or worse) a member of an NFL team. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He plays on a practice squad, has not played in an actual professional game. He falls short of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still on the practice squad, no actual appearances in NFL, fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Kraxler (talk) 17:49, 13 June 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) Esquivalience ^t 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner[edit]

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

Non-notable person created by a PR sock. Getting patents isn't enough to show notability, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG being covered in numerous sources such as American Women in Technology. The subject has been dead for nearly 10 years and so the idea that this is some sort of PR scam is implausible. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, PR socks do sometimes appear to create articles about genuinely notable people in an effort to get around editors like [[User:Joseph2302, who is very good at screening them out. I would bet that he spotted this sock doing something dubious on another article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep irrespective of the fact that some lowlife sock started the article, even a quick search shows that Kenner is widely written up in RS for her invention of a sanitary product.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is listed in the following books about inventors:

Blashfield, Jean F. 1996. Women inventors. Minneapolis: Capstone Press.
Jeffrey, Laura S. Amazing American Inventors of the 20th Century. Enslow Publishers, 2013. Print.
Sluby, Patricia C. The Inventive Spirit of African Americans: Patented Ingenuity. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2004.

LaMona (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable subject per WP:BASIC: [44], [45], [46]. The article was created prior to its creator being blocked for sock puppetry. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per HEY, as in "hey, how did I miss all of these great sources." (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Berger Nigeria[edit]

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

Minor Nigerian company, unable to find references to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely covered in Nigerian media. Large publicly-traded firm with a 50 year history.[47][48][49][50][51][52] Colapeninsula (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks genuine references and it does not meet WP:COMPANY BangVng (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found Punch News, Vanguard News, Nigeriaheadlines, Petroleum Africa, Punch News, News Telegraph, Punch News, Premium Times, Leadership News, Punch News, News United, Punch News to mention few. In fact, the subject of the article had been discussed in over 5000+ reliable sources. Trout slap to Primefac and BangVng. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:01, 9 June 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) 07:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJ (South Korean singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Quote from WP:MUSBIO: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." AJ has no solo releases, and no acting career or anything that would give him individual notability. Random86 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one reference is dead and one does not mention the subject at all. The third reads like a press release and does not, alone, support WP:ENTERTAINER notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 6 June 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. WP:GEOLAND #1. (Non-admin closure).--Antigng (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annakoteshvara Temple[edit]

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

Almost unsourced article and searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable aside from this and this (which seems to be relating to something else). Maybe there are non-English or offline sources but there's not much to suggest keeping this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems clear that this is a historic temple of some architectural and sculptural interest. Had it been a European church of similar merit, I'm sure somebody would have been able to dig up something to use as a basis for an article, but with an Indian temple... I'm lost. I assume that there are architectural surveys of such things published in print somewhere, but I have no idea where to even start looking. Systemic bias, I guess. --Hegvald (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be nice to have more sources, but we have enough to demonstate historical and architectural notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree this is a bit of a challenge, with most of the sources probably offline in dusty colonial documents. However, as a place it certainly exists, probably in itself enough to clear the GNG. It is listed both by the Government of Odisha, and by the Archaeological Survey of India as a monument, so the archaeological notability is beyond question. It seems to have an unusual sivalingam structure (there are photos) with a bright and a dark side. I've formatted the info as three references, which should be ok for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 5 June 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. – czar 19:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The App Guruz[edit]

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

Non-notable company, has produced a fair number of apps but doesn't meet WP:GNG Primefac (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the subject meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NCOMP. The article itself just cites primary sources. While performing my own search, I discovered nothing but a few brief mentions from sources that were either not independent or reliable. --Biblioworm 23:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not indicate why they are notable, "sources" are the subject's own website, web searches turn up sales outlets, news and books yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 13 June 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. and salted. Davewild (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Playing Catch with Destiny[edit]

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

Non notable book. CreateSpace is self publishing. Book lacks reviews, awards, impact. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Even were this not self-published it is just another inspiring story book. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Fan Sided review is probably usable since the site has an editorial board, although I will note that I don't see anything that shows that they edit reader submissions. In any case, that's only one source and not enough in this instance to show notability. The only other thing I can find is this mention in Sarasota Magazine. This might have been useful except that the bit reads like a promotion for the Miracle Belt and as such, seems like it was taken directly from a press release. I just can't see where there's enough out there to show that this book passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this will be the fifth incarnation of this article, I'd recommend salting just to ensure that it doesn't get recreated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually make that the 8th incarnation- this was speedied twice at Playing catch with destiny. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 6 June 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. Deor (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey T. Jones[edit]

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

Not notable. Advert for lawyer lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to a bunch of primary sources and press releases. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article only has one main author and seems somewhat promotional in nature. Nothing to indicate notability. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 16:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with what Bordwall said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyyouoverthere (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional spammy advert based on press releases (almost all of the "sources" actually state that they are such) Kraxler (talk) 18:02, 13 June 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. slakr^\ talk / 10:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces[edit]

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

1. WP:POVFORK. All content of this list can be included in List of massacres in Sri Lanka.
2. Inclusion of this list contradicts WP:NPOV, with the non inclusion of List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for more details.

Many government forces fought wars throughout the human history, and many massacres were attributed to most of those armies/military forces. But this list is an exception, because Wikipedia does not include specific lists of massacres attributed to military forces, rather than having 'country specific massacre lists' or 'war specific massacre lists'. In addition to that, this list is also a clear case of using Wikipedia for promoting propagandas, going beyond the simple rules of Wikipedia. --LahiruG^talk 09:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this is quite clearly a controversial topic with a lot of political ground on it, which, as you say can make it controversial on a POV basis. However, I do not believe this page merits deletion on that basis. I'd like to point out the article is extremely well sourced and referenced, regardless if one approves of it or not there seems sufficient grounds to say what has been done "has been done", we are not about hiding things on wikipedia if they are facts. We do not push to get rid of an article because our political preferences disapprove of it. It may be worth as an alternative editing or shaping this page to show how these events demonstrate parts of a wider conflict and instability within Sri Lanka. If you feel massacres or controversies attributed to other armed forces do not exist on wikipedia, then there's always the possibility of changing that isn't there? TF92 (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 'List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam' was also a well sourced article with RS and your entire argument is applicable to that page too, but it was decided to delete it on redundancy/POV fork at the AFD. Thanks. --LahiruG^talk 03:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of Civilian attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces: Considering the allegations of ethnic cleansing on both government forces and LTTE, this is a relevant and must have topic. (However we came to a consensus to remove the list of massacres attributed to the LTTE. didn't we?) Anyway, the problem with the word massacres is its definition. It has no legal definition and its just an opinion. There are few workable definitions. Benvenisti et al ([53] p75 - 76) defines massacre using Palestinian conflict as a model, as "it is the killing of unarmed civilians or combatants who have surrendered and who have come under the authority of the conquering force, by an armed or paramilitary force. Massacres also involves the use of lethal force in a variety of forms (terror attacks, aerial bombardment, reprisals etc.) against civilians, unrelated to military necessity but nevertheless occurring in the context of a total of and with the aim of producing ethnic cleansing." He further adds that, massacre requires three key elements. 1)perpetrators are government or quasi government agents 2)the victims are individuals who, according to the international rules of war, are not to be killed even if hostilities exist 3)the killings are not the result of any military necessary or threat posed by the victims, but instead, are part of another greater strategy. Usually first 2 elements are not the problem, but the third is. For instance, St. Philip Neri Church shelling, Vaharai bombing, Padahuthurai bombing, Chencholai bombing and all the alleged bombings of hospitals by indirect fire etc. In these instances who is gonna decide whether all these are really a massacre or not? Diiferent users will have different opinions. So i think the best solution is to rename as "attacks on civilians" which will reduce all the POV problems with regard to this list. I don't think this is a POV fork.Thanks Nishadhi (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these incidents were happened in Sri Lanka, so all of them can be included in List of massacres in Sri Lanka. And there are no lists of 'Civilian attacks attributed to Israeli forces', 'Civilian attacks attributed to Bosnian Serb forces' etc. in Wikipedia, so why there should be an exception only for Sri Lankan forces ?--LahiruG^talk 04:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, all these incidents happened in the territories comprising North and Eastern Sri Lanka characterized by a civil war for a separate state from Sri Lanka. There are specific article titles such as List of massacres in Palestine which extensively covers the massacres of Palestinians at the hands of Israeli forces. Tamils had politically and collectively expressed their will for independence from the Sri Lankan state, whose forces are accused of perpetuating these massacres covered in the article. The Mahinda Rajapaksa government which brought an end to the war was a regime that rode from the elections which the North and the East boycotted. All the massacres which took place before Mullivaikkal happened in the principal territory of Eelam Tamils who were rising for statehood for the same territory independent from a unitary Sri Lanka. Since the massacres almost exclusively pertain to the Tamil majority areas in the island, I guess a befitting move would be to some thing like List of massacres in Tamil Eelam. --CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 14:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe in this context, lack of preceding articles as a mandate for deletion, is a lame excuse. The Sri Lankan government self-proclaims itself as the first state to eradicate militancy from its soil, so there can always be a first time. You had first proposed this nomination under redundancy, now that you are unable to back that cause up(as to how this really deserves a merger), you are simply engaging in endless diversions to manipulate the discussion.--CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 14:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothern and eastern provinces are also a part of Sri Lanka and in my view your suggestion fails WP:SYNTH. There's no point in wasting more time on these kind of nonsense. Thanks. --LahiruG^talk 05:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's hard to fathom how this can be POVFORK given that it pre-dates List of massacres in Sri Lanka by more than two years. Was User:Yucatann able to see into the future when he created List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces in January 2009? List of massacres in Sri Lanka was created in May 2011. Besides, List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces contains 68 entries of which only 29 appear on List of massacres in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has a long bloody history and has witnessed hundreds of massacres. Have a single list, List of massacres in Sri Lanka, for every massacre that has happened in Sri Lankan history would result in a very, very long list. So it makes sense to have separate lists by perpetrators, conflict etc.

I'm afraid this nomination is simply WP:REVENGE for this.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(i) User:Yucatann never created a List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, the title of the article he created was List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan Military. It was only on 11 Novemebr 2013, your good friend User:Copperchloride moved the page [54] to make it a specific 'List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces' without making any move request or having any consensus at the talk page to do so. Having missing entries in the parent article is not a valid reason to have a child article, if all those entries are eligible to appear in the first list.

(ii) Yep, Sri Lanka has a long bloody history and has witnessed hundreds of massacres and Tamil Tigers are responsible for the biggest potion of them. That's why I created a separate list of List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, but you disagreed and nominated the list for deletion. And at the AFD it was decided [not to include] a separate list of civilian massacres attributed to the Tamil Tigers. So just after two weeks from your contradictory nomination, now you also believes that "it makes sense to have separate lists by perpetrators, conflict etc."

(iii) Sorry, this is not seeking revenge, but the 'justice' and consistency of WP:NPOV, a policy that is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. --LahiruG^talk 05:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title may have changed several times but the content has not - right from the beginning it has only ever had civilian massacres, it has never included "military" massacres, assassinations, battles etc. I suggest you go into a darkened room and study WP:SPLIT so that you understand why articles are split and what happens to content on the parent article when it is split.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who thwarted the split, isn't it? Any way the List of massacres in Sri Lanka is not a very long list that one can't go through easily. As we all know WP:NPOV is a policy that cannot be defied or superseded, either by WP:SPLIT or by the opportunistic POV of some users. --LahiruG^talk 09:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well evident that this entry has been brought up on grounds of this one. But it is short-sighted to draw parallels between the two. The other list was plain redundant while this one has a substantial coverage of innumerable events and details backed by reliable citations. This list is of vital importance in the context of Sri Lankan Civil War as it covers the systematic state policies of the Sri Lankan state aimed at destroying and dehumanizing the Tamil ethnicity. Some were war-related, and some can be diluted as mass murder, but a vast majority of the events were purportedly inflicted against Tamil civilians even when Tamil militancy was at its infancy(1950-1990). I quote User Nishadi's statement for the same(3 key elements). There are not less than 120 instances recorded by NESOHR of massacre of Tamil civilians(including Muslims) by the Sri Lankan State forces. Lack of valid reasons to delete/change page title. --CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 18:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may see it as "short-sighted to draw parallels between the two lists of massacres attributed to Tamil Tigers and SL government forces", but for a neutral person the massacres of Tamils or the massacres of Sinhalese and Muslims are of the same importance in the context of Sri Lankan war. Don't be bias and see that only a 'list of massacres attributed to government forces' is of vital importance in the context of Sri Lankan Civil War. As you are well aware Tamil Tigers committed a large number of civilian massacres of Sinhalese, Muslims and even Tamils who do not adhered to their strict rule in a period of over three decades. To mark the boundaries of mono ethnic state, regular massacres of Sinhalese and Muslims in boundary villages was a key weapon they used for ethnic cleansing. And to threaten the government and civilians in other areas they used systematic bus and train bombings, suicide bombings etc.(Some external web links contains month specific lists on civilian massacres of Tamil Tigers and according to FBI they killed over 4000 people within a space of two years [55]). With the non inclusion of well sourced List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, inclusion of this list clearly contradicts WP:NPOV and will serve promoting propagandas. Thanks.--LahiruG^talk 06:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. LahiruG^talk 10:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Clearly WP:POVFORK and WP:NPOV violation as the contents of this can be included in List of massacres in Sri Lanka. As pointed out by obi2canibe in [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam], all items in this list can be included in List of massacres in Sri Lanka as was the same case as in List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. As obi2canibe further stated, separation of the of these two articles may only serve a propaganda purpose. Cossde (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Nishadhi.Lapmaster (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:TF92's forceful and in my mind factual argument that we are not about hiding things on wikipedia if they are facts. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to the obvious violation of fundamental neutral point of view (NPOV). SWR2.9 (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stripping aside the ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT phenomenon, this appears to be a well-sourced list about a notable, encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the AFD decision of List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. That too was a well sourced article with valuable information on a notable subject. Some people may love terrorist organizations and enjoy their activities (as it is the case with ISIS these days), because of the violence, brutality and pain they inflict on other fellow human beings, but it is not a reason to allow them to get away with a huge list of massacres. There can't be two different sets of wiki rules applicable here. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Obi2canibe ,TF92 and Carrite. Well sourced list clearly notable.WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a criteria for inclusion or deletion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, the policies in English Wikipedia should change as per the will of obi2canibe ? When obi2canibe wanted to delete a list of massacres that he doesn't like, you requested to delete it per obi2canibe and when he wants to keep a similar list of massacres that supports his propaganda, you request to keep it per obi2canibe. Good to know that the opportunistic POV of obi2canibe is more important than even the NPOV, when it comes to 'decision making' in Sri Lankan war related articles. WP:OTHERSTUFF may not be a critical criteria for inclusion or deletion, but a straightforward violation of NPOV is. --LahiruG^talk 08:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename This whole conundrum is the result of one user who has moved this article unilaterally and without discussion. Previously the topic was balanced with an article for each side and their attacks attributed to them, List of attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces/List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. However with the move of the former to List of civilian massacres attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, a very non NPOV move, some people, including User:LahiruG have felt the need to balance it out. As these acts were carried out on both sides, both sides should be told. This whole issue can be fixed with a simple move to how things were before the unilaterally and undiscussed move. At the moment this article has greatly skewed its NPOV if it continues to exist with its current name. This article is quite liberal in its use of the word massacre and includes things like bombings and riots, which are clearly not massacres. We can remove these but then those events that are not actually massacres are lost. I think the best resolution is to rename this list to "List of civilian attacks attributed to Sri Lankan government forces" as per intended by the creator. In doing this it will balance the scales and POV in regards with List of attacks attributed to the LTTE article and should hopefully satisfy all those seeking to show both sides.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair compromise to overcome the POV concerns. If the result is keep, please start a requested move discussion of the talk page so anyone who objects can do so. I will support the move.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, the "conundrum" is probably plain vengeance on your side. I changed the title after thoroughly presenting the reasons, to which you had no response in the talk page. I can only repeat what I replied earlier. That almost every entry here is a massacre of civilians distinct from combatants. Please find one entry which mentions of a military attack. So the term civilian is indisputable. Quoting Nishadi:

A massacre requires three key elements.

1)perpetrators are government or quasi government agents

2)the victims are individuals who, according to the international rules of war, are not to be killed even if hostilities exist

3)the killings are not the result of any military necessary or threat posed by the victims, but instead, are part of another greater strategy.

Now almost all entries in the list fulfill the above criteria except for maybe a select few, and they are backed by reliable sources for the same. So I guess you need to have more food for thought on changing the title into civilian attack. Your justification for NPOV, is pitiful since I assumed article titles are decided on the basis of content and not one's perception of what is neutral. ----CuCl₂ ^(chat ^spy ^acquaint) 14:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to List of massacres in Sri Lanka. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

If we are to merge the content into List of massacres in Sri Lanka, we would have to do the same with the content in List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 1970s, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 1980s, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 1990s and List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, 2000s in order to avoid List of massacres in Sri Lanka becoming one-sided and POV. This would result in an inordinately long list which would be become a prime candidate for WP:SIZESPLIT.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know very well, if it is necessary to split an article because of its size, there are so many ways do it without violating key Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV. Having a redundant one-sided list that promotes propaganda is not the solution for it. Once again one part of your comment contradicts with another, because the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is a good example how WP:SPLIT was applied without violating other policies. By the way, I think your sudden fear of List of massacres in Sri Lanka becoming one-sided and POV, is totally unnecessary, because it includes all the massacres that happened in Sri Lanka without taking any side. Even though a single group is responsible for a big portion of deliberate civilian massacres in Sri Lanka, in my view having a neutral list is the best solution for this issue. --LahiruG^talk 05:29, 15 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic 100 Swoon (ABC)[edit]

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

Inherently unencyclopedic list. Promotional. Fails GNG. Speedy declined on the grounds that it is part of event series where every other one has a page, but even if hypothetically the other lists (or the series as a whole) are notable, notability is not transitive: this list is not notable. —teb728 t c 08:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussion about these lists. Graham87 08:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD is of little relevance here. A majority of the discussion there was on copyright, which is not at issue here (assuming the ABC free licenses their list).

The AfD nomination there (as here) cites non-notability but the discussion (both for and against) lacks understanding of the Wikipedia concept of notability, arguing that the ABC list is not important or is interesting to readers. But Wikipedia defines notability not in terms of importance or interest but in terms of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

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

The last post at that AfD cites relevant sources, but they apply to that list not this. Perhaps someday this list will have sources to make it notable, but it is WP:TOOSOON

This AfD raises an issue not in that nomination: This article is unencyclopedic because rather than being a collection of information about the ABC list, it is essentially a copy of the ABC list. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree notability is not inherited, but in what way is this promotional? Also, for all the same reasons in the AfD quoted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the word “promotional” is unfortunate: I don’t mean to say the Wikipedia article is promotional but rather that the ABC list it is copied from is intended to raise ratings.

I don’t know about other keep-!voters, but surely you know what significant coverage in independent reliable sources is: I invite you to change your !vote. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There have been lengthy discussions about other events in this series, resulting in "Keep". There's no need or reason to do that again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As not notable. No evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources. There's also no evidence of notability for some other entries in the series, e.g. Classic 100 Baroque and Before (ABC), so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments won't work. The original top 100 did get some press coverage, but even then most of the keep arguments in that AfD were dubious or non-policy-based: "so marginal that they hardly seem worth the debate", "no less notable than The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" (untrue: see the amount of references on that article), etc. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the 2015 edition of an annual, long-running, and well known public music poll. Granted, it's not as famous as the Triple J Hottest 100 competitions (after which the classic 100 are based) because classical music isn't as popular as pop music. But I don't see how you can call it an "Inherently unencyclopedic list" (my emphasis) as the nominator says, given how many other equivalent competitions are covered in Category:Music competitions in Australia. [for the benefit of non-australians: Classic FM and Triple J are sister radio-stations of the national public broadcaster, the ABC]. Witty lama 11:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question: I say it is “inherently unencyclopedic” because rather than being a collection of information about the ABC list, it is essentially a copy of the ABC list. See WP:NOTMIRROR for analogous examples of unencyclopedic content. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For what it's worth, this debate happens [almost] every single year - and every single time, 8 in total - the deletion debate gets closed as "Keep". A good summary of all the prevoius arguments used, and re-hashed each time, can be derived from them! See the overarching article's deletion debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC), and the annual competition articles' deletion debates here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 piano (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 opera (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Mozart (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 concerto (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 chamber (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Symphony (ABC); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC). Witty lama 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the AfDs, you'll see that the early polls were kept because they received independent media coverage and met WP:GNG. But in many of the discussions, there was little or no attempt to reference Wikipedia policy: people just said "Keep because it's always been kept". That's not a valid reason to keep a topic which fails WP:GNG, and because a bad decision was made in the past we don't have to keep making bad decisions. The keep decisions in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classic_100_Mozart_(ABC) and Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) were astonishingly poor, with nobody at all advancing anything that resembled actual policy-based reasons. If you can find a policy-based reason to keep this article, say so. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists in these articles constitute a valuable encyclopaedic resource about music preferences, becoming more valuable as time passes and the change or stability in those preferences is revealed. The popularity of the pieces is demonstrated as being far more enduring than any "pop" pieces. The music choices themselves, and their composers, are all notable and linked to well-developed important articles. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps some people think that because the 87th Academy Awards (for example) has an article, all lists of winners should have articles, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia has articles only for topics which are “notable,” where notable topics are defined as those that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So in the case of this year’s Oscars, notice that 87th Academy Awards#References has a long list of sources, most of them independent of the Academy. Notice also that the list of nominees and winners is a minority of the article. —teb728 t c 20:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 13:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSJoomla[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. --Anar chyte 07:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made-in-China.com[edit]

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

Non-notable website. The Forbes piece is a passing mention; all other sources are business directories or list entries. No indication of significant coverage. The best I found via Google was another passing mention that noted "flow instability, slow page loads and downtime issues, which greatly affected the business". That's not enough to write an article about the website. Besides, the tone is promotional. Huon (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Huon. I agree that there is no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 02:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 04:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)--Antigng (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Puff piece for a run of the mill website that is non-notable due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. sami ^talk 19:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the Socio-Economic Profile and BMI Status of the Families at Barangay Mayapyap Norte[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a medical journal. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this is NOT a copyvio. All the signs are there! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course there is a way this is not a copyvio: this could be the author copying and pasting their own text. If the original text cannot be found on the web then the case for copyvio is pretty thin. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple authors, though. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTJOURNAL. —Tim Pierce (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict)x2... Appears to be copy/pasted from someone's homework assignment. WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - example No. 10 million of why speedy delete should cover this... —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTJOURNAL TheMesquito^buzz 02:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a term paper or thesis, so delete as OR, NOTJOURNAL. Crow^Caw 21:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTJOURNAL. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell what the article is supposed to be about from the title, and the contents are nonsense. KSFT ^talk 17:43, 7 June 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, actually slightly leaning keep, but kept by default anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana (word)[edit]

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

Content is suitable for a dictionary entry, but not for an encyclopedia article Urszag (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason this info shouldn't be in Cannabis (drug) under alternate terms; there's just not enough substance for the etymology to support its own article like cannabis —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cannabis (drug), no reason the etymology of alternate terms can't be included in that article. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge to Cannabis, no reason this should stand on its own when its a small part that can be added to Cannabis page. Ozzyland 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyland (talk • contribs)
Merge as above: per WP:NOTDICT, a Wikipedia article is about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing" not about a word. Alternative names of the drug extracted from Cannabis sativa belong in the article cannabis (drug). Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cannabis (drug), which will enhance it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no merge The article needs work but it is a good enough start and the concept is notable. Perhaps it could be renamed to "Marijuana (etymology)", or perhaps "Names for cannabis" or "Etymology of terms for cannabis". Here are some additional sources addressing the notability of the discussion of the term itself.

Serrano, Alfonso (December 14, 2013). "Weed all about it: The origins of the word 'marijuana'". america.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
Thompson, Matt (5 March 2014). "The etymology of marijuana and the rise of weed as the preferred slang term for Cannabis sativa". slate.com. Retrieved 22 May 2015.
Yagoda, Ben (22 July 2013). "The Mysterious History Of 'Marijuana'". npr.org. Retrieved 22 May 2015.

The reason why I oppose a merge is because there is a lot of content here and if it is added to the cannabis article, then it will be judged as WP:UNDUE and deleted. A suggestion to WP:MERGE should be with intent to actually incorporate the content, not to trim it to a note and delete the rest. There are a lot of sources here, and the term "marijuana" itself disregarding all other terms for the same drug has a history which has been examined. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blue Rasberry. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blue Rasberry - Enough sources to warrant an article which including BRs sources passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP has quite a few articles on the history and use of controversial words. (Mostly ones I don't use so I will not give examples.) It seems to be a notable topic, encyclpedia-wise.Borock (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cannabis (drug). A summary of the different terms there would seem the best solution. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blue Rasberry sums it up pretty well. — Yash! ^(Y) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cannabis (drug) Shad Innet (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (see arguments above)[reply]
Keep - I'm not very keen on etymology or "(word)" articles, generally preferring that an encyclopaedia's articles focus on actual topics rather than on words about them. However, there are over 100 articles on Cannabis, marking it out as a major topic. The natural place for an etymology, Cannabis (drug), would suit the etymology of the word Cannabis (related to hanap, hemp...) rather than the word Marijuana: an etymology of that term in that article would indeed probably seem undue to editors, and it would likely be cut down drastically, if not deleted. And that leaves no other home for the well-attested etymology in the current article. Keep is therefore the correct outcome. I note in passing that there are in fact rather few arguments given above for a merge, and I agree with Blueraspberry that the likely collapse-to-note that would result from a merge would be an undesirable and unfortunate result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The merger suggestions are reasonable, but ultimately I think Blue Raspberry and Chiswick Chap make a stronger case for the separate article being a better vehicle for the presentation of this content, which goes beyond a simple etymology. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 5 June 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) 07:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Employment, Pension and Welfare Advancement Coalition[edit]

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

Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no references at all, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, unless all sources are non-English or offline, I found not even a single good source to support this. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 6 June 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) 07:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P. Kanagaraj[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMICS or WP:BASIC. There is this article in The Hindu that provides significant coverage, but not finding much else. News articles found in searches are primarily written by the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject is interesting and, as the nominator notes, there is an interesting article. But most of the references are some articles that the subject has written. Further the article is written as an essay and may not reflect a neutral point of view.--Rpclod (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't been able to find anything significant beyond what the nom has already provided. For what it's worth, the article started as a copyvio from the subject's website and I have removed that and the derivative text, noted in on the talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 12:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Intercultural Arts[edit]

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

non notable philanthropy. Article talks in vague terms about relatively minor projects. References are either PR, or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Kraxler (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler (talk) 19:37, 5 June 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.