Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 June	10 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015[edit]

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

I wouldn't think a list of number-two singles would be notable. Frietjes (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Infinitely recursive series. Ignoring the "We're #2! We're #2!" jokes, the next would be a "List of #3 singles," then "#4 singles," ad infinitum (well, to 200). This is a distinction without significance (no reason for this slicing of the pie). Hithladaeus (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Hithladaeus. Rmosler | ● 22:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be deleted for the same reasons List of Hot 100 number-two singles of 2008 (U.S.) was. G4 should apply here since this simply a continuation of the previously deleted articles. Would we have to go through a full AfD again if someone creates the number twos of 2016 next year? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information. The list fails WP:LISTN. Esquivalience ^t 23:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible G4. Fails any notability. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dump per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I noticed that the creator of this list, Coxmason88, also created List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2000. I'm WP:BOLDly adding it to the nomination because if this one gets deleted, that one should too. I checked and these two seem to be the only years that exist. Tavix | Talk 22:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clealy fails WP:LISTN and WP:IINFO. That's what this article is.--Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per everyone above - IMHO "Number 1 singles" are fine but "Number 2s" are pretty pointless, Anyway Fails LISTN. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable per everyone above. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:16, 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 delete. If anyone wants is userfying let me know, Davewild (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RideAmigos Corp.[edit]

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

non notable and promotional. The refernces are either local uncritical articles or press releases. The company's products are not yet widely used; the photo of the executives serves only to promote their own self-importance. , and has no encyclopedic purposes DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to have been written by an in-house publicist. Most references either do not discuss the subject and do not prove the related point or are press releases. The only somewhat unbiased piece appears to be a local online news article. Not enough to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft to a willing user's userspace - My searches found no actual significant and notable coverage here, here, here and here. I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 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 redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders). Davewild (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Bye (actor)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ENT, he has not had significant multiple roles in film, television or stage. From what I can find out over the last decade he has been in 6 television series, with the exception of his latest role, all the others have been an average of one episode each and of those, two of those appearances cannot be reliably sourced. 5 albert square (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect as well.--5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- as a long running and popular soap opera, EastEnders is likely to generate a lot of coverage (even if 90% of it is gossip and fan drivel). The other screen appearances seem to be minor roles. Alternately, since the majority of coverage, now and in the near future, seems likely to concern Bye's role as Martin Fowler (EastEnders), a plausible redirect/merge to that article with {{R with possibilities}} would be appropriate until multiple reliable, third-party sources non-trivially discuss the person rather than his role. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - Everybody starts off small but by the logicality of similar fact evidence his career will most likely only go up from now. His appearances will become more frequent and he is now a main character in a very popular soap opera. HIs profile has been irrevocably boosted. David King 947 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders). The actor has only had one significant role, so fails WP:ENT, and as the article currently stands, there is only one independent source (a tabloid), the other being the actor's personal website, which is not a reliable source. –anemone projectors– 13:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders) as no evidence of notability - According to IMDb he has been in a few other stuff but none of them are well-known so for now Redirect looks a better option, Can easily be reverted in 2 or 3 years if his career changes beyond EE. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martin Fowler (EastEnders). Fails WP:ENT (for now) and is perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, the redirect might be helpful to some. BenLinus 1214^talk 22:20, 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferratum Group[edit]

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

Most of the sources are just regurgitated press releases, as seems to be the case when I tried to search for more sources. I do not believe that being listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange makes them inherently notable, since notability is not inherited, and thus they fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete i just worked the article over, and looked for independent sources, and found none in english. The article has one independent source, in Finnish. Fails WP:Golden rule. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches here, here and here found no good solid coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm looking into finding better sources this week. I can tell you that there are hundreds if not thousands of articles about Ferratum Group, I'm sure I can find some that justify the nobability of this article. (I'm an employee) This is a big company with an over half a billion market cap. Warlime (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Warlime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - web and news searches turn up press releases picked up by the financial newspapers, company advertises a lot and is apparently expanding, but nobody else talks about it. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 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 redirect to 2003 in Pride FC. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines and a reasonable redirect has been suggested. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Total Elimination 2003[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Purely a results listing. And a qualifying event for another event LibStar (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article has no sources and my search just produced routine sports results reporting. The event had some notable fighters, but there's nothing to show this meets WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm more inclined to delete because there aren't good sources aside from finding this and this (Black Belt magazine, three separate pages). I would've suggested moving elsewhere but it seems that's not an option. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my rationale in the last AFD discussion (i.e. that it meets the WP:GNG). There's an article providing extensive coverage in this issue of *Black Belt* magazine, starting on page 52, and there's several pages' worth of quality coverage in Chuck Liddell's autobiography, starting on page 177. It would also be nice to see someone bother to ask a native Japanese speaker to do a quick search for Japanese-language sources, given that it's an event that happened in Japan in an era from which few webpages still remain online. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee that the (now print-defunct) Kamipro magazine would have a big ol' article. Probably easier to just delete it, though - building an encyclopedia is hard work! -208.81.148.195 (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liddell's autobiography is not an independent source and the Black Belt article is just a detailed report on the fights--in other words, routine sports coverage just like a baseball game's play by play.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pride is notable and as a result this is notable. Article needs to be expanded. 71.183.12.120 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major league baseball is also notable, but that doesn't make every MLB game notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I would prefer to see this article sourced than deleted. If that doesn't happen i would see a second option to move the data into 2003 in Pride FC. There are a few UFC events that only exist on the omnibus articles for their respective year, for example UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard. To date i haven't seen any controversy with this use of events within the omnibus articles, hopefully i don't cause any by bringing it up here. All the links in the Infobox for the event and the UFC Events template at the bottom of the article work the same as if it were a stand alone article. Kevlar (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2003 in Pride FC I have changed my earlier vote based on the information provided by Kevlar. The basic facts haven't changed--there's nothing to show this was a notable event, the article doesn't list a single source, and all my search found was the usual routine sports coverage. Since the entire contents of this article is basically a list of the results, all of this information is already in the Pride 2003 article. Therefore, I see no reason to keep an article on a non-notable event, especially when all of the pertinent information will still be available on WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My initial thought was "What a fight card!" Those are big names. Pride is also a major MMA organization. However, is one event notable by itself? Was there something particularly notable that occurred? I cannot tell from the article or searching online whether that is the case. WP:MMAEVENT probably presents the relevant guideline for analysis.--Rpclod (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Papaursa; otherwise Delete. There aren't any sources that don't involve routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No significant independent coverage and nothing to show WP:NEVENT is met. Jakejr (talk) 02:35, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Donkey[edit]

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

Insuffient evidence for notabilty for this short booklet, written by an undeclared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable book by non notable author(s) (no Wikipedia pages). Fails WP:NBOOK. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Either the book or Smith (but probably not both) merits an article; Smith meets WP:GNG: both have received quite a bit of press coverage in Australia and New Zealand: 5 refs on article plus[1][2][3]. And it did receive a NZ children's book award.[4] Could consider moving to Smith. It might be by a paid editor, but it's hardly an advert. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I dislike paid edting this is a good article about a notable book. Both the awards mentioned are fairly significant in NZ. -- haminoon (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I hope I am not seeing a trend to mark non-British, non-US, anglophone children's literature articles for deletion even when they have won awards (certainly not by a specific editor, but a general Colonial atmosphere). Google searches are VERY US centered, can only search a fraction of the web, and we seem to be depending on them a lot in these discussions, myself included. I am sure there is another venue for this comment, but here I am. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a lot of people wanting to keep this article but apart from 'I like it' nobody is citing notability criteria or even suggesting that any awards themselves are particularly notable per Wikipedia. Still fails WP:NBOOK and the authors (if there was an article about them which there isn't) fail WP:CREATIVE - a 'bit' of press coverage doen't cut it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2 in NBOOK is major literary award winner. Could you explain about awards being notable per Wikipedia? Awards for NZ books and songs don't get any bigger than NZ Post and APRA. -- haminoon (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out in these discussions many times before, Children's Literature is an underrepresented area due to systemic bias and needs expanding at (almost) any cost. That this title is not UK or US is also in play. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Come on! How can a book with a title like this be considered for deletion? Seriously though, this book definitely meets WP:NBOOK being the winner of a New Zealand book award(I have included the relevent award page in article), the subject of numerous press articles (thanks Colapeninsula:) plus here are some more sites that could be incorporated:- [5] - review on Cockburn's (so it has got across the ditch) library's blog - "This book is great fun. Very silly and bound to have the kids (adults too) in fits of laughter", [6] - Queensland newspaper holiday reading list, [7] - in-depth article about author (could also be used for author article - sorry Colapeninsula but there are others which may make him articleworthy?) and development of book, [8] - Sally Smith of Aussie Reviews - "Kids will love the silliness of this fun to read aloud picture book" and "Great for classroom use..." which is also where it has been used, here are some school pages - [9], [10], [11]. Also, a best seller [12] and [13] - yes I know being a best seller is not used for notability ... yet (see comments by Tokyogirl79 here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Nate Goes for Broke), and did I mention its about a donkey? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning possible rant to follow), following up on HullIntegrity and above comments, probably because the award is not US or Brit?, similar to another editor in another afd I was involved in who implied that a book review in the Sydney Morning Herald as not notable as it isn't the New York Times, anyway references to schoolsites that I gave above shows that it meets point 4. of nbook ... oh wait they are not US schools Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me that we have to waste volunteer time defending this. I don't think anyone would question an academy award or pulitzer. -- haminoon

(talk) 00:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Hear hear! This AfD is a serious waste of editorial time. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 15:49, 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riot City Wrestling[edit]

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

Small, independent wrestling promotion of limited/dubious notability. The refs used are either primary, i.e. their own website and a facebook page, or a website whose stated goal is to report on every single event in the area, which may be ok for verification but does nothing for notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep RCW has working agreements with Global Force Wrestling and has had notable alumni. Pidzz (talk)

see WP:INHERIT. Having an assosciation with notable entitites does not automatically vconfer notability on a subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just Another Local Promotion. These are a dime a dozen around the world and fail WP:ORG going away. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing there - yes they have a deal with GWF, which has only now held it's first show so who knows what would come of it? And some wrestlers tried out with WWE, says something about the wrestlers more than the fed - and tried out is not the same as got a deal, hundreds try out each year. Not notable, fails WP:ORG etc. MPJ -US 15:03, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Washington Fire Company[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Is for a tiny department in a small town. (Note that article has been nominated before, in 2005 and was kept.) Zackmann08 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ORG both, and there's nothing here that can't be merged into the main article. The earlier AfD is full of those trash "Seems important" and "Nice article" Keep arguments so typical of 10-year-old VfD/AfDs. Nha Trang ^Allons! 15:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete - It's a nice little article neat and sourced but there's not much past that, my searches found several links though here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this for deletion at the first AfD years ago. At that time I said it was unencyclopedic and not known outside the local area. It still is, and I now note it doesn't come near passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG. No reason to keep this. DES ^(talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 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) 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWater[edit]

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

Article doesn't state significance of software. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ...or have any references to show that it is notable or meets WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references and categories. 333 -blue 23:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of all my searches, browser was the only one that seemed to have found relevant results; no good coverage to establish notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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) 07:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Aguayo[edit]

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

Non-notable TV presenter with apparently no full list of credits and even her IMDb has little. With such little information, I still tried to search for sources (I'm a Spanish speaker so I would know how to read) and found nothing significant aside from News (mostly passing mentions for co-hosting with Angelica Rivera) and browser (similiar results, passing mentions for co-hosting) with Books, thefreelibrary and highbeam finding nothing. A look at the history here and here show the article had more unsourced information which was trimmed. As it seems she may have been best known for Alcanzar una estrella, the article can be moved there where she is mentioned. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she did some of this and a little of that. She interviewed one famous person. The references are primarily front pages of online magazines with no reference to the subject. No notability is shown.--Rpclod (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill TV worker, article doesn't indicate why she should be notable, three of the four "external links" are not about the subject, web search turns up social media, news search yields nothing. Kraxler (talk) 01:13, 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. Davewild (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuestra Belleza Yucatán[edit]

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

Unsourced preliminary round for a national pageant. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 19:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 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) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a non-notable local pageant. No reliable sources are provided, much less any indication of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:23, 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. Consensus herein is for article deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ronald Shapiro[edit]

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

Academic may not be notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The article (and the sole reference) seems mostly to want to promote the subject's technology. I did not find any coverage on Dr Shapiro except for directory entries. ubiquity (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, fails WP:GNG, no sources to show actual notability, only to promote his technology. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional. (My band (no article on Wikipedia) used to have a practice space next to the offices of a "Dr. Ronald Shapiro" who would come complain about the noise. We dedicated our album to him.) It's a bad sign that the article is named "Dr."; that indicates already that we're looking at a commercial entity rather than a biography, and the article text confirms this. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there were evidence of notability, we could clean up the promotional material, but he doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 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. Overall consensus in this short discussion is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1607 Mavis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of two lightcurve studies on small groups of asteroids [14] [15] and one large physical modeling study [16]. Also part of a small spectrographic survey of Kirkwood gap asteroids [17] aiming at discovering parental relationships among asteroids. I think this is enough coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 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) 20:59, 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) 20:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I struggle with these minimal entries really adding any value to Wikipedia. The skeletal listing, without any discussion of why the subject is important, seems to show a lack of notability. Is WP:NASTCRIT really met for this entry? I am not an astronomer, so I really don't know and figure I probably should not vote on this one, especially given David Eppstein's strong recommendation in favor of keeping it.--Rpclod (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am also not an astronomer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: the information that is there is pretty meager, but perhaps sufficient to build an article of modest size. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1590 Tsiolkovskaja[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two lightcurve studies [18] [19] and a paper that cites a third one from 1977 [20], putting it among the first 100 or so asteroids whose spin rate was determined (according to the citing paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 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) 21:02, 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) 20:43, 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 redirect to Life extension. (or wherever). There's consensus against keeping, and most seem to believe that either deletion or a redirect (w/one mention of a "keep or merge") is appropriate, so I just rounded to redirect. The article's history is preserved for merging any contents, and if the redirect's target is disputed (or anyone feels it's simply not needed at all), it can be listed at redirects for discussion. slakr^\ talk / 05:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longevism[edit]

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

Apparent neologism with no third-party verifiable evidence of noteworthiness or currency. The sources listed mostly do not in fact use the neologism, and much of the article text is about people who support a concept something like the neologism but never actually used it. The article was previously speedied as a duplication of longevity; the single-issue-editor creator just created it again. I PRODed it, the creator removed it. So AFD it is. Creator's apologia, which doesn't address that the RSes either don't use the neologism or don't use it with the meaning posited here. Zero Google newspaper sources, zero JSTOR hits, zero HighBeam hits, one scholarly usage which isn't this meaning. - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a suitable redirect would also be fine by me - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there appear to be few academic sources that use the term, the subject material is a bit beyond my grasp and it is not clear to me that they are referring to an ideology. This might simply warrant a redirect to Longevity. For what it is worth, I also stumbled across the term "prolongevism" and noticed in Wikipedia that Prolongevity redirects to Life extension. - Location (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to life extension would be OK by me too - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. I have included in my post below some evidence that longevism is indeed an ideology. In any case, I would be fine with replacing the word ideology with something more bread. Maybe we could instead say that it's "the search for" long life, "a subculture" devoted to it, or "the idea" that it is desirable. Removing everything seems a bit harsh, though, doesn't it? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Life_extension#History_of_the_life_extension_movement - the article life extension covers the movements and ideologies already - David Gerard (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for letting me know. However, it should be inconsequential to this discussion. According to Wikipedia's general notability guideline, the subject is to be presumed suitable as its own article, assuming its criteria are satisfied. Therefore, to follow Wikipedia's own guideline, you or someone else must demonstrate that either the subject has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as clearly defined by the guideline) or that the guideline is somehow inappropriate, if you are to delete or redirect the page. If my analyses of the sources below are incorrect, then please show me where and why; otherwise, removal of the article is unwarranted. --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No OED entry. No evidence that this is a term in widespread use outside of a particular webpage and some scattered mentions which may be referring to something else entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think that the term is a neologism. Longevism has been used in the way described in the article since at least 1998, as shown in the book 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era.^[1] Note that the author indeed uses the word longevism to mean the trend of extending lifespans using advances in medical science during the time period covered by the book, thus supporting the definition used in the article. Further, the term longevist has been in use since at least 1824, as shown by a perennial calendar published that year.^[2] Here, it describes a man known for his old age. ^{[nb 1]}

In my "apologia", I clearly showed the noteworthiness of the topic by demonstrating the satisfaction of each criterion in Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The guideline states that such adherence means that the article should be presumed suitable. The sources I used for demonstration both used the term longevism, in fact, and they used it as the article does, as I will prove below.

The first source, Hughes's chapter on transhumanism in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook,^[3] even includes the term in a section heading, "Transhumanism, Singularitarianism, and Longevism". Throughout his chapter, he describes how scientists have worked to prolong life (as I have summarized in the article), and the section under that heading is of particular note: Hughes says (with my emphasis added),

In his 2004 history Rapture: A Raucous Tour of Cloning, Transhumanism, and the New Era of Immortality, Brian Alexander tells a story of the convergence of two communities —transhumanist longevists and genomic scientists. The book chronicles how, on the one hand, the longevity subculture—another movement that substantially overlaps with transhumanism—was gradually drawn away from pseudoscience and medical quackery to the actual science of longevity emerging from clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and genetics.

Not only does this establish the use of the term, but it also establishes longevists as part of a "subculture" and "movement". The other source I used, The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis,^[4] has this to say (also with my emphasis added):

Medical consumerism – like all sorts of consumerism, only more menacingly – is designed to be unsatisfying. The prolongation of life and the search for perfect health (beauty, youth, happiness) are inherently self-defeating. The law of diminishing returns necessarily applies. You can make higher percentages of people survive into their eighties and nineties. But as any geriatric ward shows, that is not the same as to confer enduring mobility, awareness and autonomy. Extending life grows medically feasible, but it is often a life deprived of everything, and one exposed to degrading neglect as resources grow over-stretched and politics turn mean.
What an ignominious destiny for medicine if its future turned into one of bestowing meagre increments of unenjoyed life! It would mirror the fate of athletics, in which disproportionate energies and resources – not least medical ones, like illegal steroids – are now invested to shave records by milliseconds. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the "abolition" of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation. To air these predicaments is not anti-medical spleen – a churlish reprisal against medicine for its victories – but simply to face the growing reality of medical power not exactly without responsibility but with dissolving goals.

Note that these are both sources scholarly uses of the term (not just the "one scholarly usage" claimed above).

Additionally, I would like to point out that most of the sources referenced on the page do use the term longevism or longevist, or both, and many more can be found with a simple Google search.

Finally, I want to object to Mr. Gerard's attempt to discredit me. A perusal of the page for longevity makes it quite clear that longevism is not the same as longevity, so the speedy deletion was obviously unwarranted. Sure, I recreated the page after it was removed, but I addressed every point made by the deleter, and he has not tried to repeat his mistake in the month since his one and only attempt. I particularly object to being described as a "single-issue-editor creator", as I have been editing Wikipedia for years without using an account, and my Contributions page even shows a few recent edits on unrelated topics.

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above comment is from the article creator.

Redirect to Life extension - I don't see any indication that "longevism" is distinctly different than this article, which already mentions "longevists." It could be speedily deleted as article duplicates existing article, but a redirect seems like a good idea. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikimandia: The life extension page is about a "science", "medicine", or "gerontology" rather than a set of ideas. The page describes longevists as wanting to live indefinitely, which is not how most of the sources of the longevism page describe them. Are you sure that these concepts are the same thing? Do you think we should add a section on longevism to the life extension page? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Haptic-feedback: Based purely on the article and looking at the sources, the claim that the word longevism belongs to an ideology of transhumanism is simply not supported. According to the longevism article itself, longevism is defined as "extension of the human lifespan and life expectancy within the limit of the opportunities increasingly offered by biological and physical sciences;" This is from the "Italian transhumanist manifesto" article that has been translated into English. The original, obviously, is in Italian, and as anyone can see, not only does it NOT refer to the word "longevism" it uses the word "longevità," which is the Italian word for longevity, and not "longevismo," which is the Italian word for longevism. (It's used as a category here, and these articles are about medical science). If the original author of the manifesto wanted to use a word that meant something different than longevity, it would have been possible to do so by using the word longevismo. So the translation is complete crap and highly sketchy. Another claimed "source" is the Psychology Today article, which does not define longevism as anything, but lists longevity (NOT longevism) along with other "meaning of life" pursuits/principles like altruism and hedonism. Only under the entry for sensationalism does it use the phrase longevism ("Quality of life, not quantity: totally opposite to prudent, careful longevism: boring!"). The other sources, from what I can see, fail to define it in a radically different way than similar terms like "life extensionists" in a way that warrants a separate article. I don't doubt there are transhumanists who embrace longevism, but the question is whether they have done it in such a way that the word itself is now associated with their ideology. IMO the burden to prove longevism as an ideology, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, has not been met. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Wikimandia: I would like to point out that the article makes no claim that longevism is an ideology that belongs to transhumanism; rather, it claims that it is an ideology that is sometimes associated with transhumanism. I don't know a lick of Italian, so I can't defend the translators' word choices with much confidence. I also admit that citation of the Psychology Today article may be poor. But these uses are still both in the same sense as in the longevism page and therefore support it, if only lightly. Besides, there are other sources that associate longevism with transhumanism, such as Hughes's work. Further, you do not address the sources that are used in my arguments (here and on this page) that do give the proof of "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources". To be clear, the sources are Cope's 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era,^[1] Dormandy's The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis,^[4] and Hughes's chapter "Transhumanism" in Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook.^[3] Please see the quotes given on this page, and please note the definitions of significant, independent, and reliable given by Wikpedia's notability guideline. Now, what about these sources are not significant, independent, or reliable? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to transhumanism, I'd say: The article claims to be about an ideology. Now, I have more doubts about this ideology than you do, whoever you are, but ideology can be defined too many ways to completely disprove that the . . . people . . . nattering on and on (and on) about "transhumanism" aren't tantamount to an ideology. As for this article, it's an unsupported neologism. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Information: I know the Kevin Cope article, and he's not talking about this at all. He's a scholar of 18th century history and ideas who has been particularly interested in the development of ideas during the critical "revolution" in philosophy of the 18th century. How did people view the Bible's discussion of people who lived to 800-900 years? How did that change? See the reference to Brobdignag in there? He means the Strulbugs. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hithladaeus:I take it that you mean Cope's book does not talk about longevism in the sense given by the Wikipedia page, but I don't see why. I don't have access to the full text, but the previews that Google Books gives me when I search for longevism all point to the same meaning. I will quote each of these previews here:

An important study of longevism within the history of ideas is G. J. Gruman, "A History of Ideas about the Prolongation of Life", Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 56 (1966), 3–102.

Here, we can see he includes longevism under "Ideas about the Prolongation of Life". Given that an ideology is a set of ideas by definition, this supports the longevism page's description of the subject.

[...] different schools of longevism framed their contexts and characters in different ways, they nevertheless shared the common view that since the Enlightenment people have been living longer, and that their longevism has narrative as well as historical significance.^{[nb 2]}

Here, we're shown that there can be "schools of longevism", as in schools of thought, again supporting the claim that longevism is an ideology. The talk of living longer in the Enlightenment, that era of science and reason, supports the page's definition further.

He was indeed in a very small minority of skeptics. The more pervasive view was the sunny optimistic one, based on wonder and miracle as much as anything else, the view that life was getting longer and the marvel that it was. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: [...]

This passage seems to refer to longevism as a view that marvels at life getting longer, corroborating even more the longevism article.

Could you please elaborate on your reasons why Cope here is "not talking about this at all"?

--Haptic-feedback (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cope is using the word as a backformation off of "longevity." In other words, he's using the word as a nonce formation rather than in reference to an ongoing or postulated ideology. "Longevity-ism" is the sense of the word in his passage. I believe he was dealing with the question of "progress" and the eternal question of optimism/pessimism in the age and the repercussions of empiricism.

He has been interested both in the reactions to Malthus and to the development of probablistic reasoning. (The last time I heard him speak, he was talking about how important Huygens's objections to inductive reasoning were and how the early 18th century had begun taking unknowable propositions and dividing them up into greater and greater likelihoods as a means of solving problems. That was . . . a few years before the publication of this book.)

The general problem we have to deal with is the stereotype of "enlightenment." Is the 18th century a time of cheerful faith in Science, or was it a time of vicious skepticism about the insidious effects of nascent capitalism, enclosures, uncertainty, and doubts about man's essential nature? Most of us know that the answer is actually "both, at the same time." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hithladaeus: I agree that the word longevism is a backformation with a meaning like "longevity-ism". He surely uses the term to mean a belief, favour, trend, or something similar of longevity. But this is what I meant for the longevism page to be about. Where we disagree is on your point that his use of the word forbids future usage in the context of another time frame. Clearly, the term was adopted by others to refer to views in other periods, and the longevism page even shows how the concept has evolved from the era covered by Cope. What brings you to the conclusion that Cope pre-emptively limited the definition of the word? --Haptic-feedback (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No word can been pre-emptively limited to one definition; however, saying a word can take on a new meaning is not the same as saying it already has. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Life_extension#Ethics_and_politics_of_life_extension. The article life extension is 66 kilobytes,[21] and a size split is justified when the articles passes 50 kb. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Size_split. There is also justification for a content split. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Content_split. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to life extension, per Wikimandia. --Randykitty (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEO, I think redirect or delete would be most appropriate for this article. I agree that life extension is the most natural fit and that article could probably use some paring down itself. jps (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as a separate subject from life extension. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost never used WP:Neologism, article is a WP:Coatrack with tidbits of wisdom out of context, to support this proposed concept. Kraxler (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ While this does not explicitly mention that it is an ideology or involves the use of science, it does not suggest otherwise, and the mention of the subject is so brief that such elaboration should not be expected.
^ I apologize for the size of this fragment, but this is all that Google Books would give me. If someone can give the whole sentence (perhaps you, Hithladaeus), at least, then I would appreciate it if they could complete this quote.

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b Cope, Kevin Lee (November 1998). 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era. AMS Press. ISBN 040464404X. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: the sense that those clinging to life beyond one hundred years were monsters of a lingering type, or at least as monstrous in their days on earth, not dinosaurs of Brobdingnagian size but dinosauric in their immense lingering.
^ Forster, Thomas Ignatius M. (1824). "November 15". The perennial calendar, and companion to the almanack. London: Harding, Mavor, and Lepard. p. 637. Old Parr the longevist died in 1635, having lived ten reigns.
^ ^a ^b Hughes, James (October 20, 2011). "Transhumanism". In Bainbridge, William (ed.). Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. p. 587. ISBN 1452266522.
^ ^a ^b Dormandy, Thomas (March 2000). The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis. New York University Press. p. 432. ISBN 0814719279. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the 'abolition' of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation.

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. Michig (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory A. Sandfort[edit]

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

Non-notable business executive, all the sources show he exists but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN; the sources in the article are not just WP:ROUTINE, but appear to be mirroring one another. Current news sources are just more routine PR stuff, and a rather expensive house sale. — Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vorderline notable at best, promotional purpose, promotional sources, written by known undeclared paid editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 June 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to Tractor Supply Company as he is the current CEO. My searches found nothing to suggest he has good independent notability here, here, here and here. I'm simply suggesting the move because it's an alternative and of all the companies he's been with, the only one that actually mentions him is Tractor Supply. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 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 delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lalika[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I am partially hampered by only reading English, so decided AfD was a fairer option than prod. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think they exist. I'm not saying it's a hoax but.... the Urdu phrase refers to Laleka, which is a village (see Urdu article here: لالیکا). There's no reference to any Lalika or Laleka tribe or people anywhere. Article creator was banned long ago for copyright violations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to List of Saraiki tribes. The Lalika tribe belongs to Laleka village mentioned by Wikimandia. sami ^talk 13:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Samee, thanks for your input. Do you have any reliable sources to verify that it is notable, or that this tribe is a Saraiki tribe or form this village? I'd be happy to change my vote if such things could be established. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, impossible even to establish the existence of this tribe. Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 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. Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Betts (psychic)[edit]

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

Reason: See my comments in (brackets) regarding the introduction of the article.

Dr. (not a doctor) Jason Betts is a psychic (no comment) and IQ test author (nothing notable) from Tasmania, Australia. He is the founder and editor of the World Genius Directory, a voluntary directory of geniuses from around the world listed by IQ (not a notable website, but a personal one).[6] He has won numerous awards as a psychic (??????) and also appeared on Season 1 of The One[7] with Andrew Daddo and ABC's Unbelievable.[8] (guest, and extra? Not really notable.) He was recently referred to by Today Tonight as "Australia's Top Psychic."[5] (not an award) He is the Abbot for the Order of the Mystic Rose[2] (?????) and a member of both Mensa International,[3] the Triple Nine Society[1] and the Prometheus Society.[4] (IQ society memberships does not make one notable).

WP:ANYBIO It reads like a article created by the person the article is on, mentioning any detail that could possibly be a claim to fame, often linking to his own youtube videos. Autumnox (talk) 10:20, 9 June 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 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found some media coverage[22][23][24][25], but it's all very brief, and much of it regional/local. Psychics can be notable if they get enough press coverage, but despite that minor award he hasn't. Not notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything about him to meet GNG. Couldn't he foresee that this article would be deleted? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is neat and sourced but solid notability is not there (my searches found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion by non-notable self-promoting psychic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surender Singh Narwal[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Does not appear to have actually won election to legislative office, though he does appear to hold an intra-party post. PROD declined by article creator, who has indicated that he is the subject of the article. Safiel (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography of a non-notable politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was simply a candidate as my searches show which also found nothing significant here and here (I searched more but this is the best I found). SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a confirmed and now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheth N L High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:SCHOOL & WP:N PawanAhuja (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are notable. Also I fail to see how WP:School applies. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are considered inherently notable, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Disruptive nomination by a Likely sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 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 redirect to International Socialist Organization. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Chretien[edit]

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

Chretien was a minor (Green Party) candidate for United States Senate in California at the time of previous AFD (closed as no consensus). The argument for deletion was that he was non-notable and lacking reliable secondary sources. The argument for keeping was that he was an active candidate. 10 years on, there is no claim to notability. He is a failed candidate for political office and a political activist of no apparent or sourceable notability. Searching on his name produces stories in Socialist Worker, a fringe publication put out by the International Socialist Organization with which he is affiliated, so it is not an independent source. He has been mentioned in other fringe outlets, for example, in Indymedia, here:[26] where he is quoted ("said Todd Chretien of the International Socialist Organization.") He has written opinion articles for other fringe publication, including Counterpunch. Only RS on the page documents that he participated in a student strike at Columbia way back in his student days. Have searched for and not found substantive coverage in mainstream sources, not even when he was a candidate. Fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.

Redirect to International Socialist Organization, as he writes frequently for their publication. He seems to pop up in the news fairly regularly so he could become notable again for his bourgeoisie-crushing efforts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the original deletion discussion, WP:NPOL hadn't been codified as thoroughly as it is now — while it was never standard consensus, there was a significant viewpoint that non-winning candidates should be considered eligible for Wikipedia articles for being candidates. But that's definitely not the standard that applies now; under current wikistandards, nothing here qualifies him for a standalone article. Redirect to International Socialist Organization per Wikimandia. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somepalli_Venkata_Subbaiah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Somepalli Venkata Subbaiah

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

Is not notable in his own way, there is nothing specifically special. The article was written by his own son, however it does meet WP:NPOV LethalFlower^Talk/Reply 15:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I waited to comment so any people familiar with this could comment but I'll go ahead and say my searches found no good coverage. Although the article is neat and sourced, there's no target for moving elsewhere so delete for now I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Tadeka Geetam. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet our standards of notability. Huon (talk) 23:54, 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 delete. As no evidence of significant coverage or playing in a fully professional league has been found. Davewild (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Zin Lwin[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Da Drewster (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – He played in Myanmar National League, a fully pro league per this list. He is notable due to his goals at 2015 SEA Games. JackHoang (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackHoang: Do you have a source to confirm he's actually played in the national league? Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although he is on a team in a fully professional league he still hasn't played or made an appearance for them. Because of this he still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Drewster (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. MbahGondrong (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. Could be re-created if subject meets WP:NFOOTY requirements. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Ko Oo and Phạm Đức Huy should also be deleted due to the same criteria. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them play in a fully professional league, so they are VERY NOTABLE. It's no use deleting these articles. JackHoang (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JackHoang, Phạm Đức Huy is a member of Hanoi F.C., which is in V.League 2 (only V.League 1 is considered fully professional). And similarity to Kyaw Zin Lwin there is no source to affirm that Ye Ko Oo actually played for his club. Unfortunately taking part of the Football at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games does not guarantee notability. These articles of course can be recreated if in the future they meet the WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY requirements, but for now they do not. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article claims he plays in fully professional league appearing in WP:FPL. We know he's got U23 appearances, and so if he'd spent the last 3 years with a top-level Myanmar team, then one would assume he's got an appearance, and this is an easy keep. But we can't assume. It seems this is easily solved by digging out some match line-ups. But I've failed in about 10 minutes or so of finding ANY match line-ups for this league. Could someone provide some, or at least point to where they might be? Any language will do. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Nfitz the club that the subject of this article plays for; Magway F.C., does have an official website here, but it is mostly in Burmese (which I am not fluent in). If anyone is fluent in Burmese and say that the website mentions Kyaw Zin Lwin as having played, then it could be used as a source to establish notability. Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the subjects of these articles have taken part in a regional tournament such as the AFC Cup I believe it would make them pass WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if they played another team from a fully-professional league. But the league play seems like the slam dunk. If only there was some game reports somewhere. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. here is another website that seems to have match stats and reports but once again I'm not fluent. It would help a lot if some Burmese editors were part of the conversation as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am tagging these Burmese editors if they have anything to add to this discussion: @Thihazaw88:, @Min Aung Naing:, @Aungthurahein:, @Yin May Lwin:, @Htoolwinmaung:, @Ekyaw:, @Ladybesttruthful:. Any contribution will be very welcome thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most Myanmar clubs do not have their own websites. Even if they do, the pages are not updated for ages. Sources are often not reliable. Therefore, we can only bridge certain info given on the MFF website to Wikipedia. Magway FC website, you mentioned has no info about Kyaw Zin Lwin. Again, web pages for MNL clubs are just for the sake of its existence, not for info. Here in this MFF official page, he is mentioned (in Burmese) as a Magway FC player. This is as far as I can go. (unsigned comment by User:Thihazaw88

Doesn't look like there's been any update on the club website in 3 years. I've searched (for far too long) for match reports in the league, without much success; I found a few odd summaries but only mentioning some goal scorers; ironically the only full match squad I've come across if for a youth league game a couple of years ago when he was 20; one might assume he's been with the main squad - but nothing clear one way or the other. The only possible suggestion that he's anything more than the youth league, is his shirt number is 12 for the main squad - but I can't even find a source for that beyond what's listed at Magway F.C.. I wonder if there is anything in the media packages for the 2015 Southeast Asian Games (I haven't searched). Also, what were these AFC matches? I haven't pursued. Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC Cup and AFC Champions League are professional international competition, the former which often involves Burmese clubs. However if they did participate in such competitions thier stats would clearly show up on a website such as soccerway.com or nationalfootballteams.com. I did a quick search for both Kyaw Zin Lwin and Ye Ko Oo on both sites and only got a blank slate both times. It's looking less and less likely that these articles can pass WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Less likely it will pass AFD, but a youth player 3 years until 22, a low shirt number, and featuring in a national U23 tourament (I assume the current SEA games are U23)? That smells of first team. If we could find match linesups, and he just didn't show, then he wouldn't meet WP:NFOOTY; but with not finding them at all ... my suspicion is that he likely does have first team appearances ... but suspicions count for squat here. Both User:Jogurney and User:Struway2 seem to have been good at finding oddball reports in the past. Do either of you have any insight? Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Probably notable per WP:NFOOTY, but really struggling to find confirmation of this, the comments above suggesting that he essentially probably has played for a team in a fully professional league are undoubtedly correct, but unfounded in the sources available to those not speaking Burmese. Fenix down (talk) 10:56, 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 delete. Consensus is quite clear that this is a single incident that doesn't need a separate article. —SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Note for Vote Scam[edit]

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

I had redirected this to Revanth Reddy but that decision was reverted. This is an ongoing investigation as well as a BLP matter. WP:CRIME doesn't apply since the subject is already notable and this article is--ostensibly--about the investigation, but it seems to me this is excessive content on an ongoing investigation. Had I noticed that this is all hot off the press, so to speak, I would have gone to AfD rightaway. As it is, I think this article should be deleted, with possibly some content moved to the Reddy article--but judiciously. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), I hope this search is more appropriate for the topic. In that case we can discuss the name of page. Intention of the article is about issue related to bribing in election which is a crime incident in which allegedly elected representatives were present and caught on audio and video tapes and arrested red handedly .Court trails were under progress. I believe this article is important and more info need to be added. --Rasulnrasul (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, allegedly. That's not the kind of thing we do. We're not the news, we're an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what about this article Lewinsky scandal is it alleged or convicted --Rasulnrasul (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not record incidents where a politician faces "scam" accusations—per WP:NOTNEWS an article does not reflect current media activity regarding incidents with no evidence of long-term significance, and there is not even a claim that this incident satisfies notability requirements. The affair is important for the career of the individuals concerned, and due material should be added to their articles. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion. Please check in news Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL to understand the notability. Its not just incident, crime incident and case was in court. Its not accusation, he was caught red handedly. It was on the lines of Indian coal allocation scam. see current news to understand effect. In Inian context chief minister (one of accused)is equivalent to senator. More info may need to be added in page for showing notability and vitality of issue. -- Rasulnrasul (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS. And of course it's still an accusation. You should probably read our WP:BLP more carefully. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion This was one of the trending news in two states Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. This article can be improved but can't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ved548 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion. This article is not just about the Reventh Reddy's involvement in Note for Vote scam, but about the complete scenario of Note for Vote Scam in Telugu states of India. As per the news sources & legal case proceedings, there are many people involved in this scam. So this is an important article -- ~~raj808~~ 203.13.128.104 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- _{While closing, I've struck out the user name above as it was added by the IP who signed. —SpacemanSpiff 07:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Johnuniq sums it up nicely, a stand-alone article is not warranted at this time, mention of the arrest is already made at the involved politicians' articles. Kraxler (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every political scandal is automatically notable. To allow this forked article to stand alone would make a horrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Charles Bothwell, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is very little evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references are unfortunately now dead links, but it is unlikely that they would offer much support for notability: for example, it is unlikely that a mere "Alphabetical Locator of Graduates and Former Cadets" contained substantial coverage of individual people included in the list; likewise, a source cited as a reference for the fact that he once received a posting as a second lieutenant is unlikely to provide much support for notability. Other than that, the references consist of a news announcement that he had been appointed as chief of a State Liquor Authority, a news announcement that he had offered "business management" a plan for the protection of industrial plants, and a very short obituary in the New York Times, which is far too short (six sentences) to be considered substantial coverage.

A previous AfD discussion was closed as "no consensus", but I am unconvinced that the "keep" arguments thee were sufficiently valid in terms of Wikipedia's policies to justify that closure, in light of the "delete" arguments, which were much more in line with policies. The "keep" arguments essentially fell into two types: (1) He did various things which were striking or significant, such as receiving two highly regarded medals, and at one time being the youngest colonel in the US Army Air Force. However, Wikipedia's notability standards require substantial coverage of such things, not the mere fact that they happened, and nobody produced evidence that they had received substantial coverage. (In any case, how remarkable is being the youngest colonel in a force? At any time someone or other is the youngest colonel, and as each youngest colonel gets older and newer colonels are appointed, over the years very many people must take a turn at being the youngest.) (2) It was suggested that the mere existence of an obituary in a prominent newspaper was said by one editor to be "sufficient for notability". However, that is not in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines: substantial coverage is needed, not a mere six-sentence obituary, which is really pretty minimal. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't really seem to meet WP:GNG. Coverage does not seem to be that significant. The NYT obit would be a big deal, if he were not a prior holder of a state-wide government job. A job that is not significant enough to confer notability. EricSerge (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; esp. the point about the obituary is well taken. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on the claims in the article, he served well, but without the sorts of activities that generate news stories, and then he held a high state government post without generating any controversy before being a teacher. His dedication to serving others is admirable and should be honored, but there is nothing here to indicate that he will be a search term in an encyclopedia. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOLDIER.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above and non notability Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:12, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Subba[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:BLP PawanAhuja (talk) 13:57, 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) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark MacMillan[edit]

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

Non-notable college hockey player. Fails WP:GNG - only sources in article are routine, primary or republication of press releases. I'm not seeing substantive coverage from a search of various news sources. Article was clearly re-created exclusively using an awards list. And while creator will likely argue that the NCHC first conference team meets WP:NHOCKEY point 4, that does not remove the burden to demonstrate that the player has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. In fact, going through other recent page creations from the same list, it is becoming clear that simply being on an all-conference team does not result in such coverage. Reso lute 13:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: WP:NHOCKEY/LA was written specifically for the purpose that editors would have an objective list of what articles are to be presumed notable. Player was named to the NCHC All-Conference First Team and therefore explicitly meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my nomination statement, where I already anticipated and challenged this argument from you. Please demonstrate the existence of multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources such that this article passes WP:GNG. And remember, presumed notable is not guaranteed notable. Reso lute 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur player who fails to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from that at the time Dolovis strongly opposed NHOCKEY/LA [27][28] -- and it's curious that he's defending it now -- that's not pertinent to the discussion: WP:NHOCKEY is. The intent was that "First Team All-Star" would pertain to minor professional and major junior leagues, which use the term as a mark of the highest honors at their positions, and that "All-American" was intended to pertain to American collegiate leagues, that being the level of highest positional honor for NCAA hockey. Even were the subject to have achieved that, he would still need to meet the GNG no matter what elements of NHOCKEY had superficially been met. "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Ravenswing 02:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1448 Lindbladia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: a single light curve study with little more than a rotation period. Most likely non-notable per WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I also found only one study [29] — I thought there were two but the other one was a spurious hit. Anyway, it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Kaverin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1723 Klemola[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Significant coverage in one source concerning a stellar occultation event [30] and brief in-passing coverage in two more papers [31] [32]. I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1324 Knysna[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [33], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1819 Laputa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [34] and brief mention as a candidate for membership in a region of chaotic overlap between two resonances [35], I think not quite enough despite having such a well-chosen name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1664 Felix[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [36], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 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 merge to Faisal Saif. All three !votes following the nomination are for what will ultimately result in redirection, and two of the three are for merging. While AfD closes are not based upon a vote count, consensus herein is stronger for merging rather than just redirection. Only the nominator has opined for straight deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Adults Only (2016 film)[edit]

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

Too soon. Principal photography has not yet begun (despite these [37][38] unsupported assertions from the article's creator.) The film was just announced yesterday and this reference in the article implies that filming will begin in September. This reference from yesterday suggests that the director hasn't even approached actors about the job yet, and says explicitly that filming will begin in September. WP:NFF is the prevailing guideline and based on that, it is at least 3 months premature for this article to exist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to director's article —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Faisal Saif for now - News found a few results including possibly casting Kim Kardashian which may simply be gossip. With a December 2016 release, it's unlikely this will become fruitful anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Faisal Saif... the director's article where we may use sources speaking about his plans to include and cite information about it's progress. Consider for a return or undeletion when filming begins and this might then meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Until then it is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. If author Kittura wishes it userfied for him to work on until then, fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems only Kim Kardashian parts will be shot in September. The Film maker intends to shoot the film end of this month. User talk:Kittura 15:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kittura That's not what the references say, or even imply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the publicist of the movie. Maybe in two days the filming will start and the article will be updated regularly. Still, If everyone else thinks this article to be merged, they are free to do so. User talk:Kittura 04:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need to wait for filming to commence and the project to gain coverage in reliable sources. Would you like it userfied to you in a draftspace while we wait? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:09, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1622 Chacornac[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [39], not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability due to paucity of suitable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 16:10, 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 speedy keep. Nominator is a now blocked sockpuppet. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Monneyron[edit]

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

Completely dependent over non-notable sources. No valid secondary sources fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR PawanAhuja (talk) 12:41, 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. Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Betts (psychic)[edit]

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

Reason: See my comments in (brackets) regarding the introduction of the article.

Dr. (not a doctor) Jason Betts is a psychic (no comment) and IQ test author (nothing notable) from Tasmania, Australia. He is the founder and editor of the World Genius Directory, a voluntary directory of geniuses from around the world listed by IQ (not a notable website, but a personal one).[6] He has won numerous awards as a psychic (??????) and also appeared on Season 1 of The One[7] with Andrew Daddo and ABC's Unbelievable.[8] (guest, and extra? Not really notable.) He was recently referred to by Today Tonight as "Australia's Top Psychic."[5] (not an award) He is the Abbot for the Order of the Mystic Rose[2] (?????) and a member of both Mensa International,[3] the Triple Nine Society[1] and the Prometheus Society.[4] (IQ society memberships does not make one notable).

WP:ANYBIO It reads like a article created by the person the article is on, mentioning any detail that could possibly be a claim to fame, often linking to his own youtube videos. Autumnox (talk) 10:20, 9 June 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 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found some media coverage[40][41][42][43], but it's all very brief, and much of it regional/local. Psychics can be notable if they get enough press coverage, but despite that minor award he hasn't. Not notable. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything about him to meet GNG. Couldn't he foresee that this article would be deleted? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is neat and sourced but solid notability is not there (my searches found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion by non-notable self-promoting psychic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:35, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5Zic[edit]

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

Notability not established in third-party reliable sources. Does not meet Notability for music guidelines. Sources are primary, social media or not related to subject. A quick search does not reveal notability. CutOffTies (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was heavily vandalized on 8 and 9 June, and since this nomination it has been reverted to its original pre-vandalism version. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I should've checked the history. Withdrawn --CutOffTies (talk) 17:12, 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. slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Literati Quarterly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted after an AfD last year. Recreated now with 1 additional source (a brief article in the San Marcos Daily Record). Keep arguments on article talk page are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Still does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the zeal to delete this page considering other less sources pages without third-party sources sighted shows a systemic bias on the part of the person requesting deletion considering that request for deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior. The publication has obviously grown since trying to have a page last year. Again, how is this publication any less significant than others established in the same year? Zarbe2015 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarbe2015 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please review WP:NPA, thanks. As for the argument that there are other pages that are equally bad, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Perhaps the publication has grown since the creation of that vastly premature article of last year, but that is not reflected in the title. If you want to argue that this is notable, you need independent reliable sources about the magazine. As for the fact that "deletion was denied less than 24 hours prior", that was a G5 request and the admin handling that request judged that the new article was too different from the previous one for G5 to apply, hence this AfD. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is an independent news article not reliable enough? If Wikipedia is to have these policies they should be applied evenly. You still have not explained how this publication is any less notable than others created in 2014. Zarbe2015 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says it's not reliable enough (although one may have some doubts for such a local paper). It just is not the in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources that WP:GNG requires. As for the other articles, WP has now almost 5 million articles. If you think those are all high-quality articles, you're dreaming. If you think that I can keep an eye on all of those, you're dreaming even more. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it explains very clearly why the argument that similar articles exist doesn't apply. If it would apply, then we would have no inclusion criteria at all any more. Feel free to propose those other pages for deletion, too, if they irritate you so much. In short, we don't need to demonstrate here that this magazine is "less notable than others created in 2014". What needs to be demonstrated is that this magazine is notable, regardless of any others. --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. There is possible sockpuppetry, as User:Zarbe2015 and User:Txcn1987 both are accounts that have primarily edited only this article (e.g. SPAs). The latter created the page in 2014 and the former re-created the page in 2015. LaMona (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article says that the site has "spread like wildfire" but the Alexa stats don't support that - the site is somewhere in the 22 millionth level of web sites. By comparison, my modest personal site is in the 1.5 millionth, and the Iowa City Public Library is 300K. This dampens a bit the reliability of the newspaper article, which shows great enthusiasm for a local project, but may be biased. LaMona (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biased, or simply didn't check their facts... --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From General notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."Zarbe2015 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G4, nothing changed since the previous deletion. One "source" in the subject's hometown mentioned it, so what? The other 2 "sources" in the article are an advert and the subject's own website. Web and news searches yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants of the Berlin International Literature Festival[edit]

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

Participation in the festival is nto necessarily notable, and a list of the participants violated NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded for the reasons of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia is not a directory) and WP:LISTPEOPLE (Lists of people). Smd75jr (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, cannot find any reliable sources, probably why the article doesn't have any. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. List has no encyclopedic content, and conveys virtually no info. Mere presence at a literary festival is trivial. Kraxler (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Kraxler above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 20:13, 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. Michig (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Doctor Medical Journal[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the criteria listed in the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to locate any sources verifying this journal's existence, so this article should be deleted as per WP:V. Additionally, a high school journal without exceptional status does not meet criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me this actually seems a pretty clear speedy delete as G11 (promotional). In any case, this new journal is completely non-notable. It is not indexed in any selective databases, there are no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined a speedy on this because it was outside the scope of A7 and converted to a PROD, which was declined. My concern about the subject not meeting the inclusion guidelines stand. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Also proposing:

List of images in Gray's Anatomy: II. Osteology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: III. Syndesmology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: IV. Myology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: V. Angiology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VI. The Arteries
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VII. The Veins
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: VIII. The Lymphatic system
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: IX. Neurology
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: X. The Organs of the senses and the Common integument
List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XI. Splanchnology

Many of these galleries were created in 2006 when a large amount of content was taken from Gray's Anatomy 20th edition (1918) and put onto Wikipedia, a process that greatly expanded our anatomical content. They are duplicated in greater detail by the much more expansive commons category: commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates

However, Wikipedia has now expanded beyond the point where these galleries are useful to readers. Readers would be better served by going to commons where there are a wider variety of images from more sources of more structures and many in higher quality. I think the reason that these were created in general was to help create articles and because commons did not have the widely accepted function in 2006 that it does not. Now that articles have been expanded I think these have fulfilled their purpose. We do not have "List of images in [source]" for any other groups of articles I can think of. As Wikipedia is not a gallery (WP:NOTGALLERY) and in view of what I've said, I'm proposing deletion.

This proposal mirrors a "testing the waters" proposal for the twelfth list in which consensus was to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: XII. Surface anatomy and Surface Markings
This proposal follows a previous proposal in 2007 of which consensus was to transwiki the content. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of images in Gray's Anatomy: I. Embryology)
Wikiproject Anatomy notified: [44]
Articles plastered with templates and this deletion nomination moved to a more appropriate title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki all of them per nominator (I do not expect anyone to disagree). The procedure might be a bit tricky though (read: I did not understand the instructions), notably there might be tricks with the license. Tigraan (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these lists are redundant and unnecessary, all images are already at Commons. Previous AfD closed as "transwiki to Wikisource", but are they at Wikisource? Anybody who wants to see these images can go to Gray's Anatomy and check out the Commons link. Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like what Kraxler said, users can easily search for those images on Wiki Commons. The lists don't really serve any purpose now. — TaqPol _talk _contrib 07:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. --92slim (talk) 18:24, 18 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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbull Unreleased[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced EP. Speedy notice was removed. Tinton5 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A9. Speedy deletion tags are not PROD tags, and should not be removed by the creator of the article. Pishcal — ♣ 02:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A9 is not applicable because Pitbull article exists. —teb728 t c 04:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hasty delete: Per nomination (and an insult to the language: it ain't unreleased, if it's released). Not notable, to be polite. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While A9 does not apply here (it requires that none of the contributors to the music in question have pages), no reliable sources and no evidence indicating that it meets Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deepcentral[edit]

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

No credible sources, as defined by WP:BAND point 1, attest notability. We have a blog post, another blog post and a third blog post, which simply isn't acceptable sourcing for an encyclopedia article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt that band is notable. In 2012 they were in Romanian TOP 100 with 3 songs → http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2012.aspx , including one in top 30. In 2010 they topped charts and were present in TOP 100 with 4 songs, including 2 songs in top 10 and 3 songs in top 30 (!). Also, in 2014, were in TOP 100 with 4 songs.

2010: http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2010.aspx

2014: http://www.mediaforest.ro/Charts/Chart2014.aspx --XXN, 11:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. 97000 results in Google for /Deepcentral site:ro/. Eldizzino (talk) 21:47, 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) 06:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Uruguay relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. marked for notability concerns 6 years ago, no real notable relations, no embassies, no visits by leaders, no significant trade, no agreements, any real discussions occur in the context of Mercosur to European Union rather than country to country LibStar (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - FYI this article creator made a ton of these Finland relations articles. Some are longer than others and some, like Afghanistan–Finland relations, have already been redirected. Should the stubs be bundled together and considered for deletion/redirect? —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see examples of high level visits. The countries foreign ministers said that they've "had much cooperation in recent years". I see enough examples of a relationship to keep and expand.--TM 10:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

firstly the foreign ministry website source is a primary source. Secondly, I found no evidence of much cooperation, no significant trade, no bilateral agreement , no visit by either head of state. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be an example of a very run-of-the-mill visits. Nothing to suggest they have any unique history or special relationship, such as Brazil–Uruguay relations. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Everybody loves Finnland, but this is yet another "X + Y" article. Non-contiguous nations without significant political strife or critical interdependence, and a relationship that does not vex the world. WP not random facts. "Finnland and Mongolia relations" and "Bangladesh and Ecuador relations" should not exist. The foreign relations ministries will talk about these things, but those are primary sources. Rationale: 1) random information, 2) not notable as a topic. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources documenting relationships are added: Foreign relations between countries can be notable for their own articles, but this one doesn't seem to be very prominent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 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) 06:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Szews[edit]

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

So he's a CEO of a notable company, that doesn't make him notable. Known only as the CEO, fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was PRODing this at the exact same time. Bizarre. Fails WP:BIO. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not a business WHO's'WHO. No reliable refs, not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. B Allison[edit]

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

Non-notable sportsperson, with no reliable sources found. Tinton5 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs more resliable sources. Ping me if any are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is quite poor, but twelve rugby Tests for Ireland, so definitely meets WP:NRU. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above: it's badly done, but 12 international appearances qualifies under WP:Athlete and probably under WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Small number of reliable sources but notability established by references to his international games for Ireland. --Bcp67 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirements. PinchHittingLeggy (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 speedy delete. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality punching[edit]

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

Non-notable company, found no independent sources. Conifer (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to mention possible copyvio. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CORPSPAM at its purest. We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article making no claim to notability for this business, nor do searches turn up anything indicating notability. Could be a CSD A7. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 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 delete (G12). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure[edit]

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

This article concerns Section 53A of India's law on criminal procedure, which specifies the power to perform a medical exmaination on a person accused of rape. Currently, this article merely provides the text of the section in question. A merger of the section into Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been proposed since October 2014, soon after the article was created. But I cannot see anything worthy of being merged.
I have done web searches for news or academic discussion of the section. This article explains that it was introduced in 2005 and gives a one-paragraph explanation as to why. There are some other references which paraphrase the powers that the section provides, such as 1, 2, 3 and 4. There are also quite a few websites which reproduce the text, but I could not find anything beyond that. WP:STATUTE says that a piece of legislation is notable, but I do not think that automatically extends to each section of a piece of legislation. I do not belive my reasearch above satisfies the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG, so I am bringing this AFD nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - considering this is only text from the legislation, wouldn't this be a copyright violation? Or are laws not subject to copyright? —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I tried to find some information about that myself. Copyright law of India says that "government work" is subject to copyright, but is no more specific than that. If it was a properly formed article that also provided a review or criticism of the law, I think it would fall under the fair dealing exception. That is why I focused on the lack of sources which provide that review/criticism in my nomination. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged as speedy deletion - the whole article is the text of the law, which does appear to be a copyright violation. It can be recreated as a normal article if someone wants. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:03, 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 keep. Consensus against deletion. – czar 19:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Frog Racer 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG --☣Anar chyte☣ 08:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Ping me if more soruces are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus, ping – czar 03:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even close to being notable. Kage Acheron (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/Redirect – Has 5 reviews on Metacritic, an IGN review not listed on metacritic. And some coverage on other sites: [45], [46], [47]. Maybe not enough to make a decent separate article but redirecting to Crazy Frog Racer or Crazy Frog seems fine. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:03, 30 May 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) 18:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources found by The1337gamer. This nominations seems like a failure of WP:BEFORE. As Metacritic shows, the subject was even featured in hard copy, print Magazines, not to mention the ones easily found online, like IGN. I'm honestly not sure what's worse, the sloppy effort gone into writing this article, or the research done in seeing if it should be nominated for deletion. We do have to keep in mind that we should not mistake the former as an excuse for the latter... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not World of Warcraft, but it's got a few reviews in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As much as I hate the little shit the game does unfortunately have a few sources, Sure they're not brilliant but meh I'd say they're sufficient enough. –Davey2010^Talk 01:17, 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 redirect to Triangle Studios. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of the Dutchman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, WP:ADVERT, WP:GNG or at best WP:NTEMP. This is an article about a now-six-year-old piece of "vaporware", that is, it's a promotional article for a video game that was never actually made. It was arguably not notable to begin with, and if it ever was, the notability was temporal and confined to 2009. The latest "no consensus" vote on a nominated deletion was in 2011, and at that point, the article was already a two-year-old WP:ADVERT for a game that showed no signs of arriving. It's now four years later, the game still doesn't exist, and so, it's time to delete this article until if/when the article's subject actually, you know, exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Triangle Studios as Dutch article also does —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page created and first comment added by me, by the way. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page hasn't gotten a big upgrade in a while now, obviously not notable if it's not being updated. --Anar chyte 07:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Anarchyte: Note that whether or not the article has been upgraded or updated does not correspond with the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point, but the nature of this seems like it would suggest at least a weak correspondence. I think you could find many good candidates for deletion on general notability grounds by trawling articles about promised video games that never arrived. I think this is just one example of that for the reasons detailed above. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll throw my vote to anyone who weighs in on either delete or speedy redirect to avoid stalemate. Both seem fine to me, although my preference at the moment is still for delete since the game just doesn't exist anywhere outside of obsolete or promotional sources. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:49, 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) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Triangle Studios. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the dev article is always preferred to deletion. Redirects are cheap. Not sure how to work with these non-English sources, but all in all, there are no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and the section can always spin out summary style. – czar 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - changing my vote to avoid stalemate as described in my comment above. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 01:16, 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 redirect to Georgia_in_the_Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Contestants. Davewild (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smile Shop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band, created by a sockpuppet with a history of adding original research. No improvement since either creation or the previous AfD in August 2014 which didn't have any participation. Huon (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to: Georgia in the Junior_Eurovision Song Contest#Contestants. Thinking more about it, and after what SwisterTwister thought, I think redirecting would work better. Delete: Qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G5 (creations by banned or blocked users). The article hasn't been expanded, although I do appreciate that Rome wasn't built in a day. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 12:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5th place at a Junior Eurovision Song Contest doesn't cut it. No evidence of extensive third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Georgia_in_the_Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Contestants ~~Delete~~ - My searches found nothing to suggest this group is notable aside from the Eurovision Contest 2013 and it seems moving elsewhere is not an option. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Seeing as they were participants for Georgia, perhaps redirecting to Georgia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest is an option worth looking into. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks good, I saw several related links but wasn't sure which one was the best. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever target page the community feels most appropriate. Do not move - move and redirect are two completely different processes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lisus[edit]

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

no evidence for notability, He does not derive notability for the names he placed on a violin. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as searches here (same links listed), here (nothing that appears useful), here and here but nothing solid, significant and notable. I would've suggested moving elsewhere to save it but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 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) 14:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 3 RS: the Ventura County Star, the Independent, and the Strad. The article is stubbish, but the sources are solid. I added a bit more info, but did not exhaust the possibilities. LaMona (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider The Strad an acceptable reference. I do no think the same of the two very local papers, the Santa Barbara Strade and the Ventura County Star--those are prime examples of local newspapers giving prominence to local people. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I accepted this at AfC, for the reason above- there are 3 good sources, and I believed, and still believe, that is enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To the three independent, reliable, secondary sources already mentioned we can add: Sack, Joe (13 August 2006). "Cape Town's school for Stradivariuses popularises the fine art of violin-making". The Sunday Indpendent. Johannesburg. Retrieved 10 June 2015 – via HighBeam Research. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help) For those of you who don't have access, the main focus of the article is the Cape Town School of Violin and Bow Making, of which Lisus was the founder and co-director. The middle seven (short) paragraphs, 255 words, are about Lisus. Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Lisus' official website reproduces this article about him: Heckl, Gudrun (9 November 2003). "He's the sultan of string". The Sunday Times. Johannesburg. I haven't linked to it because I don't know if it's a true copy or if it's reproduced with permission. Someone with access to LexisNexis should be able to pull up a faithful and legal copy. Worldbruce (talk) 08:40, 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 keep. No support for deletion apart from the nominator. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Ariefdien[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians aCan't ys set out in WP:NMG Knyzna1 (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What did you make of the Google Books search results linked by the nomination process? Don't you think that enough coverage is found in those books to demonstrate notability? 82.9.185.151 (talk) 13:36, 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) 14:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have multiple sources, including [48] [49] —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainly on the basis of the widespread coverage in books found by the Google Books search that I invited the nominator to consider, but the sources found by Wikimandia only add to those. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 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. Unanimous consensus to delete the album, near-unanimous to delete the band. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Image[edit]

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

Band fails notability criteria. Search did not reveal sufficient material to meet WP:GNG, http://www.allmusic.com/album/celebrate-mw0000226460 and their philanthropic endeavours aside. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Celebrate (album) would also have to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both or the other option was moving to the Lizzie McGuire album where Triple Image is mentioned. My searches found nothing aside from Books and adding "Celebrate" to the search "Triple Image pop rap group Florida" confines it to the two Billboard links with browser finding few links and most of the same links. This wordpress talk about them and that they released Japanese albums but says they are obscure and nothing is known about their current whereabouts. SwisterTwister talk 17:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister and Walter Görlitz: Note that Celebrate (album) is not presently officially nominated for deletion, and the article does not have an AfD template on it. As such, it will not qualify for deletion per this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added an AfD tag to link it to this nomination. SwisterTwister talk 03:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Eesh, the guidelines are pretty brutal. There is no doubt that they had fame and celebrity, albeit for a housefly's lifespan. The Orlando "teen pop" media center is very professional, and it generates and dispenses with acts more brutally than Don Kirshner. The band was apparently never enough of a band to withstand the artificial inflation/deflation of that "pop" market and never got independent notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete on the album (Celebrate): My above motion was intended for the group, which was the primary nomination. However, the album fails if the band fails, and especially if the band fails. What's remarkable in this case is that the band got an enormous amount of publicity and push from a marketing-driven music group, and yet they don't pass GN. Hithladaeus (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Note that as of 9 June 2015, Celebrate (album) is also nominated for deletion within this nomination as per the above, presumably for not meeting WP:GNG as per the nomination. @Hithladaeus: Bringing this to your attention in case you missed the dual nomination herein; it appears that you may only be !voting on the initial nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage in Will, Ed (21 February 2003), "Triple Image to make double appearance", Denver Post and Novit, Mel (9 March 2004), "Triple Threat", Chicago Tribune From the later is "And on Feb. 1, they were featured in an hour-long special on NBC's "Dateline."" That was titled Profile: A Star is Born; Three young girls from Orlando attempt careers as pop stars (1 February 2004. Presenter: Stone Phillips. Reporter: Keith Morrison.) and should satisfy WP:BAND#12. They toured Japan twice so there might be some Japanese coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a keep for the band. Redirect/smerge the album. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the band and the album, didn't chart anywhere, run-of-the-mill girlie band, fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. One swallow does not make a summer, and one NBC special does not make notability. Kraxler (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does being the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national TV network not satisfy "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network."? How does the significant coverage about them in four independent reliable sources not satisfy GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list")? (Four sources are allmusic, NBC's Dateline, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One one-hour-special is not "a substantial broadcast segment". Kraxler (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference to support the appearance? It's not listed at http://thetvdb.com/?tab=seasonall&id=70600, but the coverage from 2004 is spotty. IMDB seems more complete:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103396/episodes?year=2004 and it's not there. Between those sources we have

President Bush, Feb. 8, 2004

Power of Faith, Feb. 27 , 2004

Alex Rodriguez and conditions at fast-food restaurants. Feb. 29, 2004

You can see from the Feb 29 show, that there are more than one segment per episode. Just to clarify, was it the full programme or just a segment on Dateline? Did the spot garner additional press? Where's that coverage? To answer your question, it satisfies WP:BAND #12, but not GNG, and meeting any criteria simply presumes notability, it's not a guarantee that a subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago tribune source above supports the appearance. Transcript of the show is available on Factiva. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:10, 19 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. If the list is created then anyone can create redirects at that point. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NV Residences[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG: a completely ordinary multistory condo in Singapore with very routine real estate listings, was cited once in Straits Times (reprinted elsewhere) as an example of local market rents, won an obscure local award. Article has no reason to exist other than promotion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created at the same time by the same self-declared COI editor (who probably "forgot" to declare COI here "probably in a hurry"), and have exactly the same sourcing problems:

— Brianhe (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martin No 38 is listed as a World Architecture Festival category winner (Architectural Record). If there is an architecture-specific guideline analagous to WP:ANYBIO this may qualify it as notable. — Brianhe (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both No notability established for either.Pincrete (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 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) 08:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of landmark sites in Singapore as I'm not finding much with my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) aside from one at Books. In a way, it's likely this wasn't a major event that would've attracted news attention unless it was provoked. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no such article and just these two entities aren't enouh to start a list article. — Brianhe (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 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) 07:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Rachelle[edit]

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

Actress/model who seems to have not much going for notability as well as TONS of unsourced info on her. It is interesting to note that the creator of the article is named Yvettefan. Wgolf (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that she does sound noble I will admit, and if someone can start to make this page better maybe I'll withdraw. Wgolf (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am aware of that-but I am not putting a AFD for cleanup but rather if it should be deleted or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid using the caveat of considering withdrawal based upon editors here working on the article. The minimum needed herein for article retention in this case is proof of notability; while article improvements are desirable, they're not a requirement of the process here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 02:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: There are only two sources, one of which is IMdB, which is not really a reliable source, and the second one is her own website. We don't like to use primary sources.~~ SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 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) 08:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the only article I found that mentions something that is not just a listing of her name in a cast —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 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 redirect to Scott_Meyer_(author)#Magic_2.0. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magic 2.0[edit]

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

Non notable books by non notable author. The most widely held of the books, the first, is in only 38 libraries,[50] which is utter non-notability for this sort of fantesy. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from inclusion in libraries, the books have some following online (I discovered them via an io9 blog.) The author, Scott Meyer, is a radio personality, publishes a web comic, and has written other books (including a novel that will be released in July 2015.) Where are the policies for what constitutes as notable? Trevor Bolliger (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bolliger, the policy for notability for books can be found at WP:NBOOK. In a nutshell the policy boils down to whether or not the books have received coverage in independent and reliable sources. Blogs, Goodreads, and other self-published sources cannot be used for notability because they undergo little to no editorial oversight, especially sites like Goodreads. Just about every guideline on NBOOK requires some sort of coverage to back them up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. Very helpful. --Trevor Bolliger (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some sources, but they're sort of iffy. The SFF World review is a staff review, which is good, but I'm not sure about the Tafts Daily or the SO sources. If Meyer went to Tafts then it'd be a primary source at best and I'm not really certain about SO's editorial oversight. They do have an editorial staff but the page about their submissions sort of has a "we take everything" sort of vibe to it, which works against the page. Basically what concerns me is that this is an article on the website as opposed to something that was more official, like a book or something that had some sort of "official staff review" type of label attached to it. I am finding some sources for Meyer as a whole ([51], [52]) so if I can find more then I may just create a page for the author and endorse a redirect there. I'm not really finding anything for the book trilogy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 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) 08:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking at Basic Instructions (comics) and that is suffering from some notability issues as well. It's borderline, so I think that if we pour both into one page then that should establish enough notability for one article for the creator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scott_Meyer_(author)#Magic_2.0. I'm still not sure that all of the sources I put on the Magic 2.0 article are really usable, but I think that the SFF review paired with the few sources from the BI page does establish notability for Meyer as an individual. I'm just not sure that there's enough notability asserted for Magic 2.0 individually. If someone could verify the Tafts and SO sources as usable then that'd help immensely but for right now this is a redirect on my end. I did include the basics from the article in a section about the trilogy, so there will still be information about this series somewhere, just not on its own page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - The above arguments by Tokyogirl79 make perfect sense. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 18:28, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Wine Educators[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability besides a mention in Oxford Companion to Wine. I think we need the quote and the length of the entry to judge it properly. . This is their own internal standards only, not an official certification DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The allegedly non-profit out-fit is really a profit out-fit. This spam should be deleted at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.3.18 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found results such as people getting certification, here, here, here and here. I found results for annual conferences and a new app but none of the coverage is enough. I would've suggested moving but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches turn up directories and press releases, but no independent sources talk about them. Fails {{WP:GNG]]. Kraxler (talk) 15:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suleman Khateeb[edit]

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

Non-notable Ziad (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - The Urdu called him famed. welsh (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 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) 00:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is mentioned in passing in one book: Enlite. Light Publications. 1967. p. 52. Arbab-e-Zouq (study circle of literati) was attended by leading humorists and satirists, including Fi- kar Tanousi, Yousuf Nazim, Shams Minai, Suleman Khateeb, Dilawar Figar, Rasheed Querishi and Gulfam Badayum Given the newspaper sources in the article, as noted by welsh, and keeping WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind, this seems likely other, non-English sources exist. I make my vote, however, based on the newspaper sources in English. If they are analyzed and found wanting, or if Indian sources are not found, do ping me and I'll reconsider this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if there may be scant info on him in English, he seems notable enough in Urdu that he was still somebody famous and notable, enough so that The Hindu has mentioned him. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:23, 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 merge to Light rail in North America. Davewild (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of light rail in North America[edit]

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

The topic "Politics of light rail in North America" is -- potentially notable. But the article is a mess, it has been a mess for years, and no one seems interested in improving it.

At one time the article was much longer -- however that excised material was unreferenced original research and editorializing.

In 2013 I recommended the article be merged or redirected back to Light rail in North America. Discussion here. That is still my preferred outcome. Geo Swan (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per nom: The article as it exists is an essayistic response to a single book, more than anything else, and a particular, popular, conservative attack on light rail. The politics of light rail in the U.S. don't have anything to do with convenience or profit, because those are not political factors. Those are commercial factors. The political factor is the conservative argument that all government must meet the standards of business (cost nothing, make a profit, compete with free market alternatives) and assumptions about government itself (that there shouldn't be any moral role for government, because that's "interference"). Therefore, this may not need to be merged, because it's not OR, but it's a polemic. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge carefully. Non-neutral statements need to be attributed. -- Beland (talk) 19:56, 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) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Tanonov[edit]

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

Nonnotable beginner Russian composer. Article single source is autobiography -dash- promo at a strange website. The text contains a falsehood: Nikolai Gogol does not have a work "Khalyava". (Although it is a name of an episodic character in Viy). That casts doubts in its reliability. -M.Altenmann >t 02:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) -M.Altenmann >t 02:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These references basically say "tatonov was in a concert". Of course, all musicians do concerts. This is their job. And announcements about concerts is how people know about them. NOne of the sources listed discusses the person in depth, required by the cited GNG criteria. -M.Altenmann >t 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are Russian language pages, which Russian language readers can appreciate. The article refers to none of them, of course, and voting to "keep" an unimproved article that says untrue things because a perfect article would establish fringe "keep" criteria is an stretch (esp. given the Russian language sources being in several cases local and in others unclear as for whether they are discussions of the person or mentions of an event). The article is unencyclopedic and fails to meet notability standards. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to forestall the obvious comment: Someone will no doubt helpfully point out that guideline this or that says the other or another. Imagine an article that says "Henny Youngman was my dog." Should that be kept? What duty is there to the article creator? If the AfD debaters essentially do all the work in a debate, and none of them lift a finger to fix the article, and vote "keep" and "snow keep" and "where are the snow keeps of yesterday?" then the result will be an article that sticks around with a lie. "Eventualism" is a fine thing, but so is the primary mission of an encyclopedia. Obviously, this article is not an equivalent case, but that is the principle behind my vote, esp. when people move to keep solely on the basis of a list of references they themselves generate. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purge Russian wiki says nothing about him, all sources seem to be self-published or promotional. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:26, 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. There is a rough consensus here that the article currently (just) fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, although the discussion did show that many editors thought it was close. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Solberg Søilen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BASIC. All but one of the sources cited are written by the subject and a search for other sources produced nothing. Google scholar suggests that the subject has not been widely cited. The only potential notability would be due to PROF #8 as he is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business but again, based on a search the journal doesn't appear to be particularly important. (The editor has declared a COI). SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The topic meets at least 5 criteria of WP:ACADEMIC (probably more), and I do not know you think otherwise. Søilen is a respected expert in his filed with dozens of papers written that were published in notable magazines. As you said, he is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, which is an additional proof of notability. --BiH (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of ACADEMIC? A "respected expert" according to who? Unless JISIB is shown to be a "major well-established academic journal" then him being the editor is moot. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parts 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.. JISIB seems notable to be according to this and this as it is included in journal databases and has continuity since 2011. Moreover, its publisher is Halmstad University, Sweden. --BiH (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Even Google Scholar says on its web: "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey. For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey." so notability can't be assessed only with Google Scholar. As I said, JISIB is an open source journal. The journal is already cited by SCOPUS even though it is not more than 3 years old (found an evidence here). The argument that it is not well known should not be used as no new journals are well known. Their development and usage should be taken into the account as well. --BiH (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#4 Sources? #5 only a normal prof, #7 sources? #8 again we need sources that are currently lacking, #9 did you read that criterion? SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Just qualifies under WP:PROF, but promotional and full of exaggeration, especially in the publications section. I generally think that any full professor at a research university can be assumed to be notable; in decisions at afd every one of them has been found notable in the last five or six years, except 1/ in fields where the opinion or perhaps prejudices of WP editors is that the field is insufficiently rigorous --some of these have been fields traditionally dominated by women, and this opinion or prejudice has contributed in some part to our gender bias; 2/where there is a prejudice against the individual because of their espousal of ideas that are unpopular at WP, generally in fields other than their primary notability--in the past they have often been those very few scientists who have some involvement with parapsychology or alternative medicine; more recently a few have been in climate science (I have fought every one of such deletions and shall continue to); 3/in a few special cases where there were other contributing factors. The question is whether this falls in the third category. Obviously we have deleted hundreds of articles on professors, usually for copyvio, and sometimes for blatant promotionalism--but these are matters other than notability. I first considered whether the promotionalism here is sufficient for deletion on that basis alone, but it isn't. In the last year I and others have been arguing that in all fields the combination of borderline notability and substantial promotionalism should be grounds for deletion--and many articles have been deleted on that rationale. Taking this into account, it's a weak keep.

The basic criterion for WP:PROF is to be recognized as an authority in one's field--the other parts of the guideline are just shortcuts. The normal way to show recognition as an expert is by a person's professional publications: He works in a field where bother books and journals are significant, so I will analyze both. Despite the impressive appearance of the bibliography, , he is the author of no academic research level books by a major publisher whatsoever. The only internationally known publisher here is Springer, and his book with them is not an academic book: Exhibit marketing and trade show intelligence : successful boothmanship and booth design Springer, 2013. (in 273 worldcat libraries) The publisher "Studentlitteratur" is a Swedish publisher of academic theses--it is still the custom in Sweden and several other countries that academic theses must be actually published, and the candidate pay for that himself--their publications are best regarded as self-published. Wirtschaftswissenshaftlichen Fakultät Universität Leipzig, Germany is another publisher of theses, this time in German. Ventus is a textbook publishers. Copenhagen Business School press is a very minor university publisher. The purported other books are not even books, but just chapters in books. In the hierarchy of academic publishing they not only dod not count as books, but rank considerably below journal articles, as they are rarely actually peer-reviewed. As for the journal articles, none of them is published in a first rate journal. Journal impact factors are a very rough way to evaluate journals, but they can yield some information; the best of the journals, Journal of Business Research is only 107th of the 239 business journals listed in Web of Science. Journal articles can be characterized in Google Scholar--again this is only approximate, and it under-rates non US/UK publications, and also under-rates fields where publication is in books. Nonetheless, the highest cited articles there has been cited 8 times only, which would normally be considered insignificant in any subject.

The key possibility here is one of the auxiliary criteria: being editor in chief of a major journal Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business is listed in Scopus, but no other selective index. It was started only in 2011. It might just count as borderline notable here, but in no sense is it a major journal. It does not seem to be the major journal in its niche; rather, that is Competitive intelligence review which has been published since 1990 by a major publisher (Wiley). consideration as the major journal in its niche. To be editor of the major journal is a small speciality is probably notability. None of the other qualifications in WP:PROF are even approximately met. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Studentlitteratur is not primarily a publisher of theses (not sure they publish any theses at all, but it's possible) but of textbooks, and I see no reason to see these as "self-published". (There is no reason to regard Swedish doctoral theses as self-published either in any way that would make sense to most English-speaking wikipedians, but that issue is probably best saved for another discussion.) --Hegvald (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DGG: Thank you for taking a look. I'm a bit confused by your reasoning though as you seem to be saying that there is little evidence that they are important, but because they are a professor, the article should be kept. Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#General_notes is very relevant in this discussion since there are zero independent sources discussing the subject and therefore we shouldn't have an article per BLP. Essentially, the only reason they could be notable is that they started a journal 4 years ago, which any academic could do, and for which we have no sources to demonstrate that it is an important journal. As it stands the article is basically a resume and since there are no sources, if it was made BLP-compliant, there would be nothing left! SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

any academic can start an OA journal ; relatively few would be able to maintain it for 4 years, because unless people respect the ed in chief and thing the venue worthwhile, they won;t sent in articles to publish. He's at the low end of notability by the basic WP:PROf criterion being an authority in his subject, but he's arguabley within it. When we have general practices, we should decide specific borderline situation in to maintain them, if only to avoid confusion/. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be your own interpretation rather than anything based in policies or sources. I don't think that we should keep BLPs where there are zero sources to write a biography and I thought that this was a reasonably established community norm. I'm still waiting to see even a single secondary source differentiating him from all the other academics in the world. SmartSE (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as above. J 1982 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment !voting "keep" on AFDs simply because the subject is Swedish or related to Sweden is not how it works, and I'd tend to discard the arguments of the paid editor that created the article to begin with without any disclosure whatsoever. Please make an argument based on policy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @J 1982: has a history of continuous frivolous "strong keep" votes as in [59] [60] [61] [62] [63], May–June 2015, and many more before that. — Brianhe (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The combination of being just under WP:PROF, failing GNG and the obvious involvement of a paid editor should mean we nuke this and wait for someone unrelated to the subject creates the article once he actually meets at least the academic guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF, WP:GPG, and WP:BASIC. Even hiring an editor connected to the person (I don't know whether the editor was paid as claimed above) didn't coax out some notable work. It only seems he gave his opinion about a series of topics. --Abaget (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JISIB too new for notability to accrue to its EiC. Doesn't make the top 25% of economists in Sweden. No other evidence of notability, and the paid editing thing is another strike against this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JISIB is indexed by SCOPUS, one of two best magazine indexes, so the fact that is "too new" does not apply here. About the list of Swedish economists, it is obvious that you need to register first for this site (and obviosly most or some do not) to be included. It clearly says at the top: "They are based on data about authors who have registered with the RePEc Author Service".. DGG really explained the situation batter than anyone else, I do not understand these reactions and comments. --BiH (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's look more closely at that top-25% listing, by comparing it with another measure of impact, Google scholar citations. Søilen's top citation counts in Google scholar are 20,17,8,6,4,3,... In comparison, the lowest-ranked of the RePEc-listed Swedish economists (at number 168, just barely making the top 25%) is Roger Svensson, whose citation counts (skipping a couple of papers that are obviously by a different Roger Svensson) are 214,168,74,48,... So regardless of whether Søilen is listed or not, it's obvious that he's not close to the bar for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, comparing Søilen with other scientist will not prove much especially since they are obviously in different fields. WP:NACADEMICS should be considered above all. Considering #8, as I stated above "JISIB seems notable to be according to this and this as it is included in journal databases and has continuity since 2011. Moreover, its publisher is Halmstad University, Sweden". The subject also meets several other criteria mentioned in WP:NACADEMICS. --BiH (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - passes WP:NACADEMICS #8. Kraxler (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck vote, per the objections raised concerning the importance of the journal. Kraxler (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per FreeRangeFrog, doesn't quite pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing GNG, per FRF. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was closing overdue AfDs when I came to this one and at first intended to close it, but find that I need to be able to comment in more detail than a close would permit. The subject, in my opinion, technically meets PROF#8, as being EIC of a notable journal. DOAJ is not a selective indexing service showing notability and this is a fake rating site (see Jeffrey Beall) that usually is more a sign of not being notable (no respectable journal will list this rating, only predatory journals do). However, the journal is indexed in Scopus, which means that it meets WP:NJournals. However, PROF#8 talks about "a major well-established academic journal" and I doubt that listing in Scopus (which seems to be getting less selective by the day) is enough evidence of this journal being a "major well-established" one. So I'm torn between "weak keep" and "weak delete": technical pass of PROF#8, but I think it does not meet the spirit of PROF#8. I see no evidence of the subject meeting any of the other criteria of PROF, BIO, or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 19 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. Nakon 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prasant Palakkappilly[edit]

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

No notability. VagaboundWind (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comments:- I think is odd and bizarre for the nominator to simultaneously nominates article for deletion per WP:CSD#A7 and through WP:AfD. I remind the nominator that A7 does not applies to articles with claim of significance even if the claim is unsupported by reliable sources. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly meet WP:BASIC. I found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I personally know him he was our principal in my college and my uncles Basketball playmate. I know him very well, and i wonder why he has a biographical article in Wikipedia, yes his name was in the newses some times, it's because he is the principal of one of the India's historical and 3rd biggest college in South India, which got many countless acheivements and recognitions and what not. So every news reports about the college got a mention for principal (you can check that). Is this made him a wikipedia article?. Someone fooled someone. VagaboundWind (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. Nakon 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "what makes him notable?". He has been the principal of two schools/colleges. While at each, he has promoted agricultural improvement. I would question whether that is enough to make him notable. but I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 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) 06:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Then there should be many wiki articles about a lot of unimportant persons who was principal of more than one colleges. And i am a person who know him. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. Nakon 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College President, that alone makes him a keeper. But also because there is lots of RS coverage of him and his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a principle to some school doesn't mean you get an article - I can't find any shred of notability so Delete it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Meets WP:BASIC.--Antigng (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article clearly satisfies WP:BASIC. The nominator himself has mentioned that "he is the principal of one of the India's historical and 3rd biggest college in South India" which itself is a reason to keep the page. Moreover, the given sources have exclusive articles on the person which clearly states that he is a popular environmentalist and social activist. Achayan (talk) 13:20, 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 merge to Birla Institute of Technology and Science. slakr^\ talk / 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OASIS (culfest)[edit]

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

no actual evidence for notability; the basics are already in the article for the university. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 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) 06:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename Oasis festival - it's been around for 40+ years, is massive and is one of the biggest events in Indian education[64], [65] —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a lot of idiot cruft out of India lately, as some there appear to be unable to tell the difference between social media and an encyclopedia. No one outside the university gives two ^$#@ about "Rap Wars" and "Mr. Oasis", this is not encyclopedic material in the slightest. Expand Birla Institute of Technology and Science#Oasis by another paragraph and be done with it, the parent article is not overly long. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

idiot cruft out of India? That's definitely not showing a bias in any way. Lame. What kind of research did you do into this topic to see if it's notable? Sounds like not very much, since you think it involves only one university. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line "OASIS is a cultural festival conducted annually by the students of Birla Institute of Technology and Science..." is fairly self-explanatory to native English speakers; that those from other colleges also attend is irrelevant. Expand the parent article, there is no justification for a standalone. "Idiot cruft" isn't solely an Indian thing, there's plenty of American-centric junk like Aggie Bonfire leadership that needs pruning, but this is a good place to start. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it irrelevant that other colleges attend, Tarc? That's the whole point. They are attending because they are interested. By your logic, if Florida State football hosted and played in the national championships game, the other team wouldn't give two shits about the event. That they even attend is irrelevant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, as the BCS, or whatever they call it at present, is a collective entity. This is an event organized by a single institution, that attendees fro mother institution attend. It is not notable apart from the parent. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Tarc: One cannot say "delete and merge," but I'd prefer that. And for the highly argumentative, consider this: Ramblin Wreck parade. That can't be red can it? Shock! Gasp! That's because one finds the material in Georgia Tech traditions, and the Ramblin Wreck parade is a lot older than any 40 years. Yes: nationally known universities with intramural traditions do not necessarily get independent articles. Hithladaeus (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Birla Institute of Technology and Science. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Birla Institute of Technology and Science § Oasis. Not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article per WP:EVENTCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 19 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. Nakon 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Apocalypse[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent reliable coverage, does not satisfy guidelines for notable films BOVINEBOY2008 10:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted. Cool Apocalypse is notable for being an independent film that has had public screenings (and won awards) at two international film festivals in two different states. Among the "independent reliable coverage" in the article are links to the official website of the Illinois International Film Festival, on which the film's award-winning status is noted, the Internet Movie Database, and the website of filmmaker/critic Julian Grant, who reviewed the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgsmith (talk • contribs) 13:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete without prejudice for a return when this gets analysis and commentary in multiple reliable sources. It has screened and received peer recognition through awards, but still needs a bit more coverage. Okay with it being returned to its author as a user draft. It's simply a bit TOO SOON. But @Michaelgsmith: as it appears from username that you might be its writer/director Michael Glover Smith, I wish to advise that while WP:COI does not absolutely forbid you writing about your own project here, because of a personal connection with the project it is strongly discouraged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Admittingly it does sound a great film but per MQS it's way TOOSOON for an article and the COI doesn't fill me with any confidence, I suggest Michaelgsmith takes a step back and let an editor create the article once more sources pop up - Constantly creating it yourself only means it'll keep being deleted and then eventually salted which would then mean it'll never be recreated again so I'd stop if I were you , No objections to recreation once more sources crop up. –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 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. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shimoga Telecom Companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list has a set of telecom companies which are not based in Shimoga. If needed to be kept, the list should be more apt if it would have been List of telecom companies operating in Karnataka. Because telecom companies operate in a circle (Here Karnataka Circle to be precise) rather than in a particular city/town. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shimoga: No harm in listing the telcos in the main article, but not worth a separate list for any one city of telcos just providing coverage there (rather than headquartered there). I wouldn't keep the info on particular number ranges - non-encyclopedic detail and constantly changing: Noyster (talk), 11:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't merge worthy at all, it's simply a list of cell and landline service providers for the district, all of whom are common to the entire state, and almost all operate nationally, thereby making this a completely pointless list. —SpacemanSpiff 12:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as a citywide list is unlikely to be notable where as a statewide or countrywide of course may be. SwisterTwister talk 16:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable to keep a stand-alone list. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:42, 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.

[3] While this does not explicitly mention that it is an ideology or involves the use of science, it does not suggest otherwise, and the mention of the subject is so brief that such elaboration should not be expected.

[6] I apologize for the size of this fragment, but this is all that Google Books would give me. If someone can give the whole sentence (perhaps you, Hithladaeus), at least, then I would appreciate it if they could complete this quote.

[cope-1650-1850-1] Cope, Kevin Lee (November 1998). 1650-1850: Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era. AMS Press. ISBN 040464404X. There was a grotesque monstrosity in this growing longevism: the sense that those clinging to life beyond one hundred years were monsters of a lingering type, or at least as monstrous in their days on earth, not dinosaurs of Brobdingnagian size but dinosauric in their immense lingering.

[forster-2] Forster, Thomas Ignatius M. (1824). "November 15". The perennial calendar, and companion to the almanack. London: Harding, Mavor, and Lepard. p. 637. Old Parr the longevist died in 1635, having lived ten reigns.

[hughes-leadership-4] Hughes, James (October 20, 2011). "Transhumanism". In Bainbridge, William (ed.). Leadership in Science and Technology: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. p. 587. ISBN 1452266522.

[dormandy-white-death-5] Dormandy, Thomas (March 2000). The White Death: A History of Tuberculosis. New York University Press. p. 432. ISBN 0814719279. And, it goes without saying, the logical extension of longevism – the 'abolition' of death – would not be a solution but only an exacerbation.

[1]

[2]

[nb 1]

[3]

[4]

[nb 2]