Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 March	12 March >

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. Tone 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Calling Cloud[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a month old company with 1360 employees. I am unable to find any sources that establish general notability. In fact, the company's URL serves up a 404 and I am unable to find evidence that company even exists. Possibly a hoax. - Mr X 23:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletefails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, has no references, and appears to violate WP:PROMO. Despite the article claiming to operate in English-speaking countries (Specifically US, UK, and Canada), I couldn't find any sources or news items on 'Calling Cloud, LLC' nor its parent company, 'NxtGenus, LLC'. The article states the business was established last month. --Padenton (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding any sources to suggest this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gongshow talk 05:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's a web page out there now but none of what the article says is congruent with that website or with the actual parent. In any case it's hardly notable, either way. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Likewise my search for sources came up sparsely. Mkdw ^talk 21:49, 15 March 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. Speedy deleted per G11. Nakon 01:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frontside Alley-oop[edit]

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

Unsourced, no significance indicated. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - created to promote own youtube clip. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete per G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The article is for promoting a YouTube video. The article will need to be rewritten in order for it to become encyclopedic. Esquivalience ^t 00:26, 18 March 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. A7, G11 Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Virginia Proulx[edit]

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

Author contested BLP PROD by adding invalid references (they only consist on external links) ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - not notable. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AppointmentPlus[edit]

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

Notability is not established based on the people who may use the software. There is nothing of an independent nature here to establish that notability. Piece seems very promotional. I declined the speedy and thought to bring it here for a broader concensus. JodyB_talk 20:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like useful software, but there are no sources that establish notability. As the nominator points out, some organizations are using it, but merely using it does not establish notability. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 19 March 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 01:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Goree Girls[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON plus the sources are iffy on the reliable scale. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as in development and despite having lots of coverage it has not yet begun filming and so fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3). We do have plenty of reliable sources speaking about plans so it can be spoken of and sourced at Goree All Girl String Band, but it is simply TOO SOON for its own article. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as MichaelQSchmidt points out, this film that maybe is a classic example of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). --I am One of Many (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Northern Lights (1997 film)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTFILM Northern Lights is not notable enough for its own article. Despite that it was commercially distributed, there are no citations to any news articles, and no professionally critical reviews of it that I could find. The only citation simply serves to prove of its existence, and existence alone is not enough for notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator I was far too hasty in my AfD. I won't be pushing them when i'm tired anymore. Jcmcc450 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. A film starring Diane Keaton and produced by Disney Studios meets the guidelines for notability. J I would suggest that you read WP:BEFORE as you proceed with future AFDs. A {{Refimprove|date=XXXX}} tag rather than an AFD is what this article needs. MarnetteD|Talk 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that there is a variation of the refimprove tag. Yes the article could use expansion - there a hundreds of thousands of articles that is true of. MarnetteD|Talk 00:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic. The film has been reviewed by Variety, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, People, and The New York Times. I used "northern lights" "diane keaton" review and variations as the search query. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage exists to pass WP:GNG and WP:NF as evidenced above. Gongshow talk 05:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above and per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per sources provided by Erik, Diane Keaton + Linda Yellen + Disney, it was virtually impossible this film was non-notable. Cavarrone 19:17, 12 March 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. Tone 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dale Morrison[edit]

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

This bio is presumably here because the subject, while incarcerated on a seemingly non-newsworthy crime, committed a further misdemeanor against a famous fellow inmate. I believe this is the very embodiment of WP:BLP1E. Let us delete this article. -- Y not? 18:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable BLP written like a news article. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Subject does have few references but main concern is notablilty of subject. I don't think, there are any contribution that can make subject inclusion in world's largest encyclopedia.Ireneshih (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just sadly another average criminal. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 13 March 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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Quijano[edit]

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

There is no evidence at all that this business manager satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited is a record of his death on the web site of his former employer. A Google search turned up various unreliable sources (including Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc) his employer's site again, another, much briefer, report of his death, a page on the website of The Times of India which simply says "There are no news stories on Douglas Quijano" and gives no more information about him at all, a mere entry in a listing site, and so on, but nothing that could be regarded as substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. A PROD was removed in February 2010 by an editor who gave an edit sumamry saying "thi sguy is probably notable", but made no attempt to add sources to the article to show that he was. (That editor did post to the article's talk page, giving a link that was supposedly to a newspaper article about Douglas Quijano, but the link is now dead, and the editor gave no indication at all as to what the content of the article was, or how substantial the coverage was, so it is, unfortunately, impossible to take that into account.) Almost five years after the statement that he is "probably" notable, nobody has added any more evidence of notability to the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the subject has received significant coverage by way of the subject's obituary in GMA News, also the subject of this AfD has a brief mention as a producer and director of a vampire movie. That being said, the obit can be seen as the subject only meeting WP:BIO1E, and as the single event was the subject's death, WP:NOTMEMORIAL likely applies. Furthermore, as very few reliable sources give significant coverage to the subject's death, and no sources can be found that give significant coverage of the subject of this AfD during the subject's life, it leads me to believe that the subject doesn't meet notability by WP:BIO. Therefore, unless additional in-depth sources can be found, I am leaning towards supporting deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he worked for GMA, so the report of his death by GMA News was not independent coverage. A company might well run an account of the death of one of its own employees, but no other news company, so far as I can find, thought him notable enough to report even his death. 79.123.86.96 (talk) 08:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN also did a story, but it's difficult for me to access.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but leaning towards a week keep - As I used to be a frequent reader of Philippine showbiz magazines, I can tell that there is at least one article on him on YES! magazine, published by Summit Media which, as far as my knowledge goes, is not linked to any of the major networks. Also, said article was published before his death (it was an article regarding "the most powerful people in Philippine showbiz" at the time, at which he had an entry). Unfortunately, it might be hard to find said article online, but I can assure that it exists (for reference, it was published prior to around 2010, and the #1 person listed was Willie Revillame while the #2 person listed was Kris Aquino). There should also be coverage over at PEP.ph, which, while apparently linked to GMA, is otherwise an independent news portal as it reports news from all three networks. Also, I feel that trying to use The Times of India as a source is not exactly a good idea given that Quijano was unlikely to have been well-known, if known at all, in India. While these existence of these sources may not necessarily establish notability, it does suggest that this may not be a BLP1E case. Pinging Howard the Duck to see if he could help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with ruling out sources from GMA: this person must've worked with GMA, ABS-CBN and perhaps all of the other TV networks, even the state-owned ones, so we'd be removing a lot of potential reliable sources. Even newspapers, magazines and online publications could've been involved with him at some point so it'll be very hard to find a reliable source if we'd be basing it on "working with them" rule. The thing is, this person works "behind the scenes" so news reports about him are not easy to come by. –H T D 13:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This discussion was closed as "delete" but is reopened and relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 3, where additional sources have been proposed. Sandstein 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 3#Douglas Quijano.
Here are the sources I have found (ordered chronologically):
1. "Star manages celebrate birthdays in style". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2000-08-05. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  The article notes:
  
  Ethel Ramos and Douglas Quijano, two of the most respected star builders and handlers we have today, have just celebrated their birthdays.
  ...
  Quijano manages Richard Gomez, Anjo and Jomari Yllana, Joey Marquez, Aiko Melendez, Eric Fructuoso, John Estrada, Janice and Gelli de Belen, and has also into line-producing for Regal.
  Quijano had his billiard, booze and ball party at Padi's Point West ave., where we spotted all his alagas except for De Belen.
2. "Public Eye - The Power 25". Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. July 2002. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
  The article notes:
  
  11. DOUGLAS QUIJANO, Talent manager
  « STAR MAKER
  Douglas Quijano
  Douglas Quijano has a sharp eye for spotting raw and young talent and molding them into screen idols. That's what he did with the likes of Richard Gomez and Jomari Yllana. Quijano is foremost an image-maker, and he uses that experience to carefully shape his talents into sophisticated sex symbols programmed to sell anything from movie tickets to underwear. With the transfer of most of his talents to GMA, he is also actively involved in the conceptualization and casting of programs there.
3. Ganzon, Tina (2009-06-13). "Douglas Quijano found dead in Quezon home". ABS-CBN. Archived from the original on 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
4. Lo, Ricky; Ozaeta, Arnell (2009-06-14). "Talent exec Douglas Quijano found dead". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
5. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano 'He was a dolphin in world of sharks'". Inquirer Libre. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
6. Dedace, Sophie (2009-06-15). "Douglas Quijano, 64, was first manager of Goma, Aga, and Pip". GMA Network. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
7. San Diego Jr., Bayani (2009-06-18). "Trivia: Dougs' very first talent was Pip". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
8. Ching, Mark Angelo (2009-06-20). "Douglas Quijano gets accolades from his talents on the last night of his wake". Philippine Entertainment Portal. Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
9. Villasanta, Boy (2009-06-22). "Lahat sila'y lumuha sa kamatayan ni Douglas Quijano" [All of them shed tears for the death of Douglas Quijano]. Pinoy Weekly (in Filipino). Archived from the original on 2015-03-11. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
10. Panaligan, Jojo P. (2009-07-24). "Douglas Quijano's wards move on to new managers". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2012-05-16. Retrieved 2015-03-11.
Analysis of the sources:
The first two sources were published before Douglas Quijano's death. They are from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (which is considered one of the Philippines' newspapers of record) and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
The sixth source, an obituary from GMA Network, is roughly 730 words. The ninth source, an obituary from Pinoy Weekly, is roughly 1,414 words.
The widespread coverage of Quijano's death strongly indicates that he is notable because he did not die an unusual death (which would attract media attention). Instead, he died a natural death (by heart attack).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Douglas Quijano to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 3#Douglas Quijano participants Reyk (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), Thincat (talk · contribs), WilyD (talk · contribs), Mkativerata (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), and 185.58.82.6 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that adds up to significant coverage in reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 17 March 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 under WP:CSD#A7, merely being an actress is not an indication of significance. Hut 8.5 22:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lee (American actress)[edit]

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

Page that basically tells you nothing. What has she done? What has she been in? And good luck trying to find the right Christine Lee! Here: http://www.imdb.com/find?q=Christine+Lee&&s=nm&&exact=true&ref_=fn_nm_ex Wgolf (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consider A7 speedy. There's nothing here to even start from. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Right after I put this up I was thinking why didn't I just put a speedy up. Wgolf (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as the article is a one liner with no sources provided, No objections to recreation providing sources are provided and that it's not just a one-liner article. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Capital[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources are either are PRIMARY, dead links, or only serve to prove the company exists. Google search shows similar results. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons given. Article does not provide/prove notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources in the article may not be very good, but there seem to be a lot of articles on the web about the company doing business.

[1] Investing In Vietnam With Dragon Capital's Bill Stoops - Forbes
[2] Dragon Capital Invests in Philippine Geothermal Developer - Bloomberg Business
[3] Dragon Capital marks 20th anniversary | Corporate News, Latest Business
[4] Dragon Capital to merge portfolios - Economy - VietNam News
[5] Dragon Capital targets wealth managers with Vietnam fund | News | Fundweb
[6] Dragon Capital launches first actively managed Vietnam Equity UCITS Fund | Wealth Adviser

According to the first one, it's the largest private shareholder of stocks in Vietnam. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I agree with Margin1522, references from forbes, bloomberg does makes subject marginally pass notability. Will be surprised if this page is deleted.Ireneshih (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Margin1522's refs. Earflaps (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odd, my WP:BEFORE search came back with a number of sources in addition to the ones mentioned by Margin1522. Several from Bloomberg. It should be noted the company is known mostly as "Dragon Capital" and also has at least two subsidiaries. I agree the article has sourcing issues and presents in a promo tone, but those are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. I would encourage the nominate to re-evaluate this AFD after they do a more in-depth WP:SET. Mkdw ^talk 21:56, 15 March 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. Procedural close - Not sure on the sock thing but the editor has been disrupting the place so will close as Keep - I have no objections to renomination providing it's by a legitimate editor. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (Southeast Asia)[edit]

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

Pure list of programs that are the same as the original channel. Merge to main article or US list JamesNo12 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pure action-replay of previous vexatious AFDs and vandalism committed by User:Finealt sockpuppet account.The central claim that all international channels show identical shows to their US parent is not correct and has been repeatedly demonstrated to this user, who has also redirected a large number of similar articles in the space of a few minutes in a further attempt at 'deletion by the back door'. Bonusballs (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Banned user requesting deletion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:08, 11 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Sharma[edit]

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

actor who falls under too soon, none of his films are out yet, now someday, but not yet. (It should be noted that this was deleted before) Wgolf (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here was the old afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunal Shrma (obviously was misprinted as you can tell) Wgolf (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR with no prejudice to restore if he becomes notable. Actor who is very early in his career with one minor supporting role so far. Quick look at some of the reviews for his only film, Rahasya [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], shows only slight mentions of his role so didn't make a notable impact. Three sources used in the article all have the appearance of gossipy sites/ blog like and don't meet RS. His next release on March 20, The Legend of Michael Mishra seems to have him play another minor supporting role. Looking at the previous AFD, we're at a similar situation of an actor having only played one minor supporting role in a film so clearly not notable. Cowlibob (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Subject seems to be non-notable atleast for now. There are no major sources that make him notable.14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is making his debut with Rahasya with one of the prime suspect in the film. His many interviews can be read online and also his next releasing film is with big indian stars. there also he is doing major role. according to me his profile should be kept here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.251.219.76 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-He might be making a debut for a film but its still a little too soon. Wgolf (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note-there is a Indian sound editor named Kunal Sharma also who is linked on to here: Filmfare Award for Best Sound Design-this is a DIFFERENT PERSON. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a view to recreate/rescure once he act in more movies in coming times and become notable. Educationtemple (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON at best. For now, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Cavarrone 06:13, 15 March 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 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IVVVO[edit]

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

Artist does not have enough notability, article sounds like self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marckusugar (talk • contribs)

Weak keep and improve. The article contains some spammy language about IVVVO's label Terrain Ahead, but that can be fixed. It also contains poor sourcing, but I believe a Google search will turn up more sourcing to indicate that this artist is, indeed, notable, having been the subject of multiple independent stories. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the subject seems to be notable and can be marked with the improve tags.Ireneshih (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 March 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. Tone 06:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South African Food in UK[edit]

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

This page consists of a table about the availability of South African produces in UK supermarkets. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and non-encyclopedic. Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is just South African Food then I would suggest redirecting to South African cuisine, but a delete for "in UK" because the target does not mention relationship with UK. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article says: "This page has been created to offer this community a reference to buy foods that are Proudly South African..." This purpose is against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It would be better to host this on another website, Facebook page, etc. and have a link at the bottom of South African cuisine, although I do sympathize with South African people away from their homeland. Borock (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 11 March 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. Nomination withdrawn.

Josephat Obi Oguejiofor[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:ACADEMIC. I thought of "prod" but seemed to be unnecessary when I considered WP:BEFORE. He's just a normal academic staff, doing his job Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a lot more luck searching for coverage using a first name of "J.O.", "J. Obi" or "Obi". He has been the president of three national (Nigerian) or international organizations related to philosophy or religion, which I believe meets WP:PROF C6. He has also been an editor-in-chief for at least two academic journals, which I think further speaks to notability, though I am not sure if those in themselves would be notable enough to meet C8. I do think C6 covers it though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you validate your claims with the organizations database, to prove that he served as president of three national (Nigerian) or international organizations related to philosophy or religion? The journal where he was an editor-in-chief. If you can do that, I will be glad to withdraw and close this discussion (as keep) with speed. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that some of Oguejiofor's books are held in more than 100 libraries. I don't often use this criterion, but I think that's pretty good. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you got your figures (100 libraries). You actually made your search with the key word "Oguejior". I found several authors with that name. Meanwhile, there are 368 work contributed in all format by various author with the name "Oguejior", comprising of 254 articles, 17 downloadable articles, 75 books, 58 book-printbook, 26 ebook, 12 thesis/dissertation, 32 downloadable archival material, 4 DVD, 2 computer file and 1 journal magazine. "J Obi Oguejiofor" had 16 papers Oguejiofor J Obi had 5, Obi Oguejiofor Josephat had 2, Oguejiofor J O had 2 and Josephat Obi Oguejiofor had 11. I want to believe that they are all the same as "Josephat Obi Oguejiofor" who is the subject of the article under discussion. Which means that the subject of the article had 36 papers contrary to your claims of. Other author that bears Oguejifor include Solomon Oguejiofor, Edward Oguejiofor, Victor Oguejiofor, Patrick Tagbo Oguejiofor. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 05:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually used no such keyword as Oguejior; that can easily be seen in the linked search results. Using the subject's actual last name, and of course filtering out people like Edward Oguejiofor who have a different first name, there are multiple works with more than 100 holdings. Examples:

Philosophy, democracy, and responsible governance in Africa - search results indicate it is held in 127 libraries
The arguments for the immortality of the soul in the first half of the thirteenth century - 129 libraries
The philosophical significance of immortality in Thomas Aquinas - 131 libraries

I'm not sure what you mean by the organizations' databases, but I added sources to the three presidencies and two editor-in-chief appointments prior to voting keep. I overlooked that no reflist parameter was in the article yet, so I've added that now, making those refs visible. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I withdrawn my nomination to speedy keep, per WP:SK#1. Many thanks to EricEnfermero. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:16, 12 March 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. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, there is sufficient enough consensus to keep the article. Nakon 01:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Wiitasalo[edit]

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

Subject of the article has requested deletion (see OTRS#2015031010014834). Notability is borderline, so I'm filing this AFD on their behalf under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She actually passes guidelines for WP:ARTIST. However, the OTRS request is from her "spouse" and not directly from Wiitasalo. But, per BLP request I'm fine with delete...but that doesn't mean someone won't write the article again in the future. Missvain (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep award winning notable artist, passes WP:ARTIST has no controversial or personal content that requires deletion?. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I want to respect the request for deletion, but can't see how we can apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to a biography with no negative material on a well-known, public figure. The article is adequately sourced at the moment and numerous books, magazines, and news articles can be found that have significant coverage of her and her work (The Canadian Encyclopedia, The Globe and Mail). gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply to an artist here, more or less as Gobonobo describes. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:26, 18 March 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. Tone 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen of the Road (Mumford & Sons)[edit]

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

Unsourced promotion. Nearly nothing on the company itself. The Banner talk 12:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure spam. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 17 March 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 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smealinho Rama[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He's won two second tier championships but has not yet had a top tier fight. Fails WP:NMMA and it's likely to be awhile before he gets 3 top tier fights. Obviously WP:TOOSOON, but no objection to the article being recreated when he meets NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tim Hague, Derrick Mehmen and Anthony Hamilton are all 3 top tier fights he has had and is about too have another one against Blagoy Ivanov former Bellator vet so his page should be kept due to the fact he is already proven his self as one of the top if not the top heavyweight in North America meaning Canada and is on the rise, he has won the Heavyweight Title of one of the main promotions in televised MMA, the World Series of Fighting is considered a major MMA promotion and is still growing, Smealinho Rama deserves to have a page this page deserves a chance JMichael22 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at WP:MMATIER and you will see he has no top tier fights. The definition is very clear.Mdtemp (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG and is the subject of many independent articles. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG. The requirements for notability are based on where you fought not who for the simple reason that fighters are not always peaked. Fighting ex-UFC and ex-Bellator does not tell us much and beside notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't his rank as the #1 Heavyweight fighter in the entire country of Canada say something about him as well as his credit as a heavyweight champion for the third largest MMA company in the U.S & Canada (World Series of Fighting) JMichael22 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the notability criteria for MMA fighters was reached by consensus after a long discussion. I don't know why so many MMA fans want to ignore existing guidelines and create their own. WSOF is not top tier--would you argue that a football player in the third highest league in Canada was notable? Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters since he has none of the required top 3 fights. Second tier titles are insufficient to show notability. His coverage consists of routine reporting of sports results and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with just routine sports coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep by WP:Athlete and WP:GNG. He is far more notable than Kimbo Slice Consensus for MMANOTE is apparently not 100% good for notability24.103.234.74 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page deserves a chance to grow he is obviously very well known in an entire country (Canada) is the #1 ranked Heavyweight in the country... The World Series of Fighting deserves credibility as a top MMA promotion as it's events do very well and seem to be guiding the promotion to bigger things... he is notable due to the fact that he is ranked on many websites as the #1 Heavyweight in Canada and holds the WSOF Heavyweight Championship regardless of what the thoughts on the WSOF are he holds wins over named opponents formerly of the UFC, Bellator & Strikeforce JMichael22 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deleted, you are welcome to keep a copy of this in your sandbox and add to it. Please remember that WP notability is determined by WP consensus and policies. Notability is not obtained by association with others (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Claims of notability are not based on any Wikipedia policy besides WP:ILIKEIT. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to close this as delete myself but instead I will be put down in the delete camp. I'm reluctantly in this camp because common-sense would suggest this fighter will eventually meet WP:NMMA. Unfortunately, fighting other notable fighters is an argument of inherent notability, and statements like "he is far more notable than Kimbo Slice" ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:NMMA. The coverage he does have is routine sports coverage and nothing that would suggest he has received an amount of coverage exceeding that of the usual amount and therefore a standout in his sport. Mkdw ^talk 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is ranked as #1 heavyweight in the country of Canada does that not hold notability!? JMichael22 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that website, not by a national association or official ranking system, and if it's like tennis where the rankings change every week, then per WP:NMMA he will need to have won a title for his position to be deemed notable. Mkdw ^talk 06:38, 17 March 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 02:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Snow[edit]

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

Doesn't have any sourcing that is independently notable of the topic. He's a Mormon leader who's only sourcing comes from the Mormon church. Some claim that any high-ranking church leader is automatically notable, but that is not supported by any policy or guideline. p b p 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are not currently included in the article, but from google searches I'm finding some non–LDS Church sources that could probably be used to establish Snow as being notable as the official historian of the LDS Church. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Church Historian is clearly and qithout question notable. As are members of the 1st quorum of the 70.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that merely saying "Person X is notable" ain't an actual argument, right? And that there's no policy or guideline saying that members of the 1st Quorum are automatically notable? This may very well be kept, but it shouldn't be kept on the basis of votes like yours, @Johnpacklambert: p b p 06:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are more sources on Snow. Here [10] is an interview that shows his inpact on a wide range of people in his office as Church Historian. This article [11] covers Snow's appointment to the faith-based neighborhood council, which shows this moves beyond just Mormon issues. Here [12] is a New York Times article that mentions Snow. Here is a FairMormon [13] essay that makes significant mention of him. Here is a Washington Post article mentioning him [14] Here is an article on him from the Salt Lake Tribune [15], Here is another article that mentions Snow [16]. Considering how many of these I am finding, I think the nomination of this article is a clear demonstration of doing adequate pre-nomination for deletion research on the part of the person who nominated it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes users nominate an article based on the sourcing used in the article, not on extraneous research of potential that they conduct. I don't think doing so is a cardinal sin—that's one reason why we have discussions about articles, so other users who are interested can take a deeper look if the nominator did not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:48, 11 March 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. Nakon 01:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Myung Ji-yun[edit]

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

Can't find any notability at all-and the Indonesian wiki is exactly the same as this one. Wgolf (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She's had several roles in TV and movies, though I don't know how large the roles were. I'm unsure why her article has no content. From the history, it looks like it used to but it was unsourced so was all wiped out due to BLP concerns(?). She was in Iris (TV series) for instance, which was very successful, but her part was fairly small. Her roles are also listed on her Korean WP article. So I think she probably passes notability requirements but it's a question of if anyone will ever improve the article. There are editors who specialize in translating from Korean WP, and this may be one of those (they usually have the stub tag I see on this one). But Korean WP is really sketchy on sources in general, so sometimes we get articles without them. Maybe that happened here. Shinyang-i (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment-I tried finding the IMDB name, but such as the problem with quite a few Asian names, though where there are multiple people (well that's true for most-like John Smith well not that common) or alternate spellings, ect. Wgolf (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I feel your pain. When coupled with the multiple romanization methods, searching Korean names is a learned skill. :) The birthday is helpful, as is the original name spelling (명지연), which give a lot of unambiguous results in Korean and in English-language fanwikis. The latter are not RS, obviously, but can help point in the right direction. IMDB is not, in my limited experience, very helpful, complete, or accurate when it comes to Korean actors, so I'm not shocked it didn't help you much. I'll try to get some basic (& sourced) info on this article soon. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless sources are presented, as written, this is nothing but an unreferenced BLP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no longer an unsourced BLP. I have added many of her roles, with several sources (all Korean) from reliable sources. Information on the older roles is hard to find, although actually two of the sources on there list a number of her past roles and the roles are listed at technically-non-RS-but-unlikely-to-be-hugely-wrong sources like her Daum profile. I think this is enough to get it off the list of unsourced BLPs. Shinyang-i (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There does not seem to be agreement on whether the sources for this topic overcome the modest h-index. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Ginsberg[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:IlyaV, whose rationale (found here) is that the subject is a non-notable professor, and that the article reads like an advert. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, as an Associate Professor with a h-index of only 9. -- 120.17.113.201 (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, search for this individual finds more often content about the mother of Allen Ginsberg, and not the subject of this AfD. Once we strip all the content about the mother of Allen Ginsberg, one finds very little in the way of non-primary or secondary reliable sources that give mention of this subject. Furthermore, those who do, do so in passing, and in no way do those sources appear to meet significant coverage or in-depth coverage, and thus the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. See WP:NOTRESUME. Perhaps it is too soon for the subject to have an article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's h-index, according to GScholar, is indeed only 9, but GScholar also shows her as first-named author of two papers with citation counts of over 100 and (so far as I can judge) a g-index of at least 25 (a person's g-index is usually more than their h-index, but rarely by this kind of ratio). The main problem here seems to be that she has published a few papers with high citations but not much else. In some fields, these achievements would be quite enough to clearly meet WP:PROF#1 despite the low h-index - here, it might still be TOOSOON but I would like to see further opinions. PWilkinson (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The endowed chair and other awards (ignoring the unnecessary listing of BA and PhD) are sufficient for wp:academic LaMona (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete An endowed associate professorship is not an endowed chair within the meaning of WP:PROF. It's a funded junior position,which some of the richest universities arable to provide, but it indicates a career still in development, but with promise. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of three weeks ago, she is the recipient of a Sloan Fellowship, which is highly selective (criteria 1 discusses "highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships)"), as well as holding an (admittedly junior) endowed chair; she has performed work which appeared on the cover of Nature magazine, and has multiple papers with 50+ citations, including at least one with 100+ citations. If the main concern is the advertising nature of the article, then let's just rewrite it. I'll volunteer to do it if that's the only reason people are voting to delete.Brirush (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made some changes to address the self-praise issues and to improve formatting.Brirush (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ Keep Although it may well be just a tad WP:TOOSOON, this is a well-sourced article on what appears to be a rising research scientist. We have so many paltry articles about unquestionably notable academics (some of which I started), that it seems a shame to delete a pretty good article about an academic who appears to be on the cusp of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barely-above-threshold citation counts and Sloan fellow push this to a keep for me, despite being earlier in her career than I would prefer for the creation of a new article. There's every reason to expect her record to continue improving, so in a few years I would expect her to more clearly pass WP:PROF; if not, we can revisit the decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 15 March 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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1919 Market Street[edit]

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

Not Notable. Just another office building being constructed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a residential building, and there are at least three other articles of equivalent significance already in existence: Murano (skyscraper), The Residences at The Ritz-Carlton (Philadelphia) and 1706 Rittenhouse. Geracudd (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which lists some fundamental arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. That being said, I don't find those other articles comparable as they each have a unique assertion to notability that this article could not, in its current state, claim. Further, those buildings have significantly more coverage about them, and perhaps more importantly, they've been built. Mkdw ^talk 22:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whether it is a residential building or a commercial building is irrelevant. It needs to be historically significant or to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The problem with highlighting other stuff that exists is that two of the three above are of questionable notability too. The third is in the top-10 tallest buildings in Philly and is the tallest residential building. With half as many floors, this one doesn't come close. We don't need articles for every nondescript building in every city. Wikipedia isn't a directory. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stalwart. Pax 09:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Antigng (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No different from any other building being constructed in the world, Perhaps it's just me but I'm just seeing no point to this article. –Davey2010^Talk 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Keri (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be notable after a century, not now. Antigng (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete an article about a 29 story apartment building in Philly. No assertion of notability, no sigcov, and possibly even WP:FUTURE coming into play since it's about a building not fully built yet. Mkdw ^talk 22:06, 15 March 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 procedural close. All of the articles are redirects, hence should be discussed at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Garnett (politician)[edit]

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

Person was an otherwise non-notable Mayor of Colchester. After previous AfD this was reduced to a link to that page. It now exists only as a circular link, except in name disambiguation lists. Repeated AfDs have established that ceremonial mayoralty in such small towns does not meet WP:POLITICIAN (eg another ex-mayor of same town recently deleted)

I am also nominating 3 related pages that fit the same description:

Kevin McE (talk) 06:49, 11 March 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 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 11 March 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 Tomas Mattias Löw. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 15:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Priest[edit]

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

Non-notable film, not due for release until September 2015. No sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Flat Out let's discuss it 05:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This film might not pass WP:NFF. However, the film has received independent coverage from multiple sources. Just out of curiosity, how is this article different than Point Break or Jagga Jasoos and several other movies that have articles on Wikipedia but are supposed to be released 8-9 months later? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if there are multiple independent sources they should be added. Regarding other articles, every article must stand alone. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Raphael Kurian has gotten some press but I fail to find any mention of the film at this stage. That might just be me, @AKS.9955: would you add the "independent coverage from multiple sources" you are talking about? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect temporarily to filmmaker Tomas Mattias Löw. Allow return once WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to director Tomas Mattias Löw for now. I find no sources on this film apart from the three database entries. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment support redirect to Tomas Mattias Löw. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:41, 13 March 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. Nakon 02:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukamaka Olisakwe[edit]

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

I've been watching this page evolve in the draft space, and it was declined for not demonstrating notability. The creator then decided to bypass the system and put it into the mainspace without actually demonstrating notability. There is all of one reliable source in the draft (the NYT article), the rest are either name drops or her publications. Primefac (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Africa39. She received a fair amount of coverage after being selected as one of the 39 most promising writers under the age of 40 from Sub-Saharan Africa. (e.g. [17], [18] and [19]). She has also received coverage as the screenwriter for a TV series. [20]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 11 March 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. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular action has emerged, and several merge/redirect targets have been proposed. I suggest continuing discussion regarding these matters on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motovlog[edit]

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

See WP:NEO. Neologism with no authoritative sources. Needs at least one quality dictionary source, and at least one non-blog non-social media source where motovlog is the main subject. See also WP:NOTMADEUP. There are no hits for this term at HighBeam, General OneFile, Questia, or JSTOR. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename There is a reliable source, interviewing a large vlogger. The article refers to motorcycle vlogging, maybe that should be the title of the article instead. ^[1]WP:NOTMADEUP does not seem applicable to this article. WP:NEO problem should be solved after rename. Atlesn (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/12/09/baron-von-grumble-interview/

Delete or merge to vlogging per nom. If this term is only used by certain vloggers, then it is a neologism. If it is not a neologism, then we should find it in multiple RS. Brianhe (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sousveillance, Dashcam or Helmet camera. (As you can see, we already have too many articles describing the same thing.) Pax 09:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Helmet camera and/or Dashcam as appropriate. Insufficient coverage of the term for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:11, 15 March 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 01:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Some one-time plays on BBC, but no evidence of his music in regular rotation. No evidence of significant chart appearances. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plenty of coverage of the police incident ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]), but none of it adds to his notability as a musician. --Michig (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on article and web searches, not notable for police incident, not notable as a musician. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:37, 14 March 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. Nakon 01:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon & Leah[edit]

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

Not a notable group, hasn't done anything significant. The pair only are known for being apart of the Kardashian/Jenner mob. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they are notable as they have music on the Billboard charts in accordance with point 2 on wikipedias musician critea and here is a direct source from the Billboard 200 [28] scroll down to 82 Naue7 (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Well sources and notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep band as borderline notable, merge articles on the members into it. Keep because the group did have an EP chart on the Billboard 200 and perform the theme for a notable television show, which is two NMUSIC criteria. Weak because the article's currently only sourced by interviews, charts and a wedding announcement, and because whether doing the theme song for a spinoff of the reality show that they're on counts for number 10 seems murky. JQ East (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Cable reality shows are the low-rent district of Grade-Z TV schlock, and scoring one shouldn't account for much. There's just not enough independent notability. Pax 09:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JQ East and Ism schism. EP charted on the Billboard 200 as well as the Billboard Independent Album Chart. "Showstopper" was/is the theme song for Kourtney and Kim Take Miami. Reliable sources are used in the article. Melonkelon (talk) 20:45, 16 March 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 Brandon & Leah. Nakon 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jenner[edit]

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

not notable per WP:ENTERTAINER; their "group" Brandon & Leah aren't notable either, they are noted for being apart of the Kardashian/Jenner mob. Notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notable as has music on the Billboard charts in accordance with point 2 on wikipedias musician critea also like his brother brody has been on many reality tv shows Naue7 (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited just because his brother is Brody Jenner. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well sourced and notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if "reality" shows have supporting cast members, he'd qualify as one. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandon & Leah...unless that article, currently under AfD, is deleted, in which case Delete. Subject is not notable outside of their two-person "group". Pax 09:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability isn't inherited and his "group" ain't notable either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 18 March 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 Brandon & Leah. Nakon 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Jenner[edit]

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

not notable per WP:ENTERTAINER; their "group" Brandon & Leah aren't notable either, they are noted for being apart of the Kardashian/Jenner mob. Notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well @Lady Lotus: by that logic the page you made for Yolanda Foster should be deleted because they are both on reality shows but unlike yolonda leah is notable in accordance with wikipedias musician critea as she has music on the Billboard charts (which is point 2 on the criteria list) also with the entertainer criteria she has 300k more instagram followers and add that with her husband that's a bigger fan base or cult following Naue7 (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the page Brandon & Leah isn't deleted then this page should be redirected to that. And bringing up Yolanda Foster is WP:WAX and shouldn't be a point for your argument. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Well sourced and notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandon & Leah...unless that article, currently under AfD, is deleted, in which case Delete. Subject is not notable outside of their two-person "group". Pax 09:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other member of their non-notable group. Can't inherit notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 18 March 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 04:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeghikian (Band)[edit]

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

OK, I'll start this discussion.
A song by Yeghikian (Band) might have been played on an episode of American Dad! ^{[citation needed]}. Other than that, no indications of notability.
PS: I've listened their vids on YouTube, and they seriously rock. As do many other bands who don't meet Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---I don't really agree with you. Official music video (of professional production quality), interviews in local, notable magazines, their own website, as well as an appearance on a nationally syndicated TV series. Not sure what else would constitute notability. crackyhoss 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---Yeghikian was indeed on an episode of American Dad! a few weeks ago, however the episode was a few weeks ago, to recent to have the details of the track listing available online. Please be patient. As soon as it's up we will cite it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.132.98 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sujatha (TV Series 2014 - )[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series with no reliable sources. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination / did not find reliable sources. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I can't find a single mention of the show online, in English or Sinhala (සුජාතා සිංහල ටෙලිනාට්‍යය, according to the creator's talk page) to confirm that the show even exists yet. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Note that the article's creator has twice tried to remove the AFD notice from the article, and so far has attempted once to re-create the article under a different name at [29]. Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator has refused to update this article, and instead has repeatedly created duplicates, each time leaving a clue in the title, allowing references to be found. For example, yesterday the editor created the duplicate Sujatha (Sirasa TV), and from this the show's page is easily found on the Sirasa website [30]. So it does exist, and I've added an external link to this article. If we can find more sources showing that it's notable, I'll change my vote to keep. Finding them is much harder work than it needs to be, though, without the cooperation of someone who reads Sinhala. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we can recruit the help of someone listed at Category:User si, although as Dai Pritchard said, finding sources shouldn't be this difficult. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any reliable sources to assert notability. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:29, 15 March 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. JodyB_talk 12:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Craig Gautier[edit]

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

Although referenced, I doubt that this person rises to the level of notability that should result in an own article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was created by a WP:SPA whose sole contributions have been this article and an attempted article about her husband (there's still a draft of the husband's article, but when it was moved to main space, it was deleted per A7). Lisa's article was tagged as an A7 by an IP, and although it was a dreadful article, I didn't feel comfortable deleting it and declined the speedy. However, I then hacked (no other word for it) almost all of the unsourced sections from the article, leaving what remains now. If you look at the history, you'll easily be able to see the earlier version. Also, the SPA attempted to reinsert the same messy material but was correctly reverted by the nominator here. This is all for background as I am not voting.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's funny that they created articles about her and her husband, neither of whom are notable, but apparently have never tried to create an article about their nonprofit group, Matter of Trust, which might be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 11 March 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 Archive Series Volume No. 1. Nakon 01:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Series Volume No.1[edit]

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

May fail WP:NOTABILITY, since the album hasn't been shown to have charted. smileguy91^talk 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has already received coverage from good sources. Whether or not it charted isn't an issue. Another one brought to AfD a few minutes after it was created - you simply cannot be competently considering alternatives to deletion in that timescale. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection this article needs to be deleted and redone, due to the fact that it seems I misspelled "No.1" without a space. In all the publications it is styled "No. 1" Zachmays — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new article entitled Archive Series Volume No. 1, which matches all the articles and the information from the official website. So this article Archive Series Volume "No.1" should be deleted. User:Zachmays

That would have been a good argument for moving it to the correct title, not deleting it and starting a new article. If kept the two articles will need to be merged to preserve the editing history. --Michig (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to updated article version Archive Series Volume No. 1, which has cites to demonstrate notability. Merge just needed for edit history, as noted above. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 11 March 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 Filinvest Development Corporation. czar ⨹ 22:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filinvest Land, Inc.[edit]

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

Obscure company, no notoriety, content created by two users one of whose user name is actually "Filinvest" — only 3 non-list pages link here, 2 of which should probably also be deleted. CircleAdrian (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, parent company doesn't even have a page. CircleAdrian (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, text on the page is copied verbatim from company's website. CircleAdrian (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least merge to ~~a Filinvest article~~ Filinvest Development Corporation - The company is no means "obscure": Filinvest is one of the largest companies in the Philippines, particularly in real-estate. Also, I wonder if the nominator even bothered checking for sources: a simple search results in several hits for the parent company. Granted, many of these are routine coverage, but the sheer volume of hits suggests notability at least for the parent company. ~~If anything, I'm surprised Filinvest doesn't have an article at all, given how long it's been active and that it has many, many projects and investments.~~ Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment below, I'm supporting a merge to the newly-created article mentioned. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging the article to a Filinvest article — that's part of why I thought this article was problematic, though, was that there was an article for this relatively insignificant subsidiary & not for the much larger parent company. (And yes, I checked for sources — same issue.) CircleAdrian (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I thought "Filinvest Land" was "Filinvest" all along. It is the most prominent subsidiary, if they even had other subsidiaries of note. –H T D 20:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have created a new Filinvest Development Corporation article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the parent company's page and remove copy-pasted material from the source page. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 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, unfortunately notability per WP:N has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young and Free International[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what about this article is really wrong? Why can't someone just point out the exact "lines" that are not good so that some adjustments are made? Please I seek all your guidance.Reliable sources such as Campus Bee Uganda do exist. First of all, it is verifiable that the company in question does exist, then it is verifiable that the event talked about does exist and existed. If someone is saying it has been written as an advert, why cant the particular line be singled out so adjustments are made? I do highly believe Wikipedia is there to give true information that exists to the readers. So, if something is true but not known to some users who propose deletion, does that mean it does not exist? If it has been written like an advert, why cant someone point out the unnecessary lines so adjustments are made? Lots of new things come up and we welcome them so we keep infromation flowing. All we got to do is to keep updating it. Young and Free International needs to stay on the encyclopedia because much as it is not known by some users on this platform, in a certain country else where, youth are acknowledging and appreciating it and the world needs to know that. So, please, i humbly ask that we consider making adjustments to this article than deleting it. It will be so unfair if we delete this article just because of a person trying to relate issues seemingly connected to their point of view and attaching them to the guidelines of wikipedia yet it may not be the case. I seek your guidance please. Belguinprosper (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belguinprosper: The issue isn't that it sounds like an advertisement (that is a problem, but like you said, it can be fixed). The issue is that the subject of the article doesn't meet the standards of WP:ORG, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I appreciate that you are trying to get information out about the organization that you started, but Wikipedia isn't really the place for that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht I appreciate your response and guidance and am willing to follow your advice please. However, to be open and sincere, my information is not biased at all. Please, I kindly request you to please help me out in making this information as neutral as you seem fit. I welcome your help please. Then about notability and nuetrality, I was and I am still adding more info to the article please whether positive or negative because I know its not the last time this article is being updated. Please help me where u find necessary. I WELCOME YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belguinprosper (talk • contribs) 04:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy Delete, and so tagged. Naked spam article, apparently created by the company's alleged CEO. Pax 09:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had PRODded the article with the same reason given here by Ahecht. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 March 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 - still just spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Treasures of Swat[edit]

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

Recreated after speedy. Mostly the same content. Mikeblas (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Speedy Delete. (I also have a hunch that the article creator is a sock of the first version's creator, who, until today, had stopped editing after I "outed" him during the last AfD discussion.) Pax 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't speedy after previous speedy content recreated, I'm afraid. (Or do I not understand it right?) -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd policy(?). Every recreated spam page would get to sit around for 21 days during subsequent AfDs. Pax 16:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 says "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." I guess that's a double-exclusion. That is, spam speedy, then recreate, then recreation doesn't apply -- but spam still does? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the parentheses: "...in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)..." My interpretation of "may apply" equals "may be valid" (criteria for re-deletion), so let's tag-n-bag it. Pax 06:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 12 March 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 in this short discussion is for deletion. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi DiPiazza[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this individual could meet notability criteria at present Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, due to lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 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. JodyB_talk 13:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Game Studios[edit]

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

This should have been speedily deleted for no indication of significance. However an IP (likely just the original author logged out) contested the speedy for the following reason: 218 results on google news in English, 303 results in Japanese . 60 employees according to the official website. As we know, that statement isn't enough to establish WP:N, but technically since it was contested by "another user" we will have to go through AfD. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that the subject of this article satisfies the basic notability criteria. Notability is not inherited by one of its employees being independently notable. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree they don't inherit notability from their notable co-founder, but they have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with regard to their development of Devil's Third which was missing from the article. I've added that to the article along with instances of significant coverage. Sure, much of that still relates to the co-founder's previous work but the company has confirmed contracts with Nintendo and their game was announced at E3 last year. There's probably enough there for me, but I totally understand the nomination here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for giving us some additional background info, while this company may become notable, I still think this isWP:TOOSOON, what we have is a fledgling company with some notable people trying to release a quality video game. However, to date they have failed to release a single game, and they also failed to release Devil's Third for PS3 and XBOX 360 as originally planned and have now scaled it back to a Nintendo only release, which may more may not come to fruition, and even if it is released may could just be a flop. That being said, the only thing going here is that there does appear to be some coverage in reliable sources, but is it enough to be considered extensive? -War wizard90 (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was founded in 2009, so it's hardly a "fledgling company". Ha ha. Yes, the plan was to release it for PS3 and Xbox 360 but they didn't "fail" at that attempt - partner company THQ (the PS3/Xbox link) went belly-up and Valhalla went to Nintendo who signed them that day, after a single meeting, sight-unseen. But you're right - none of that really matters - the issue is whether reliable sources have given the company significant coverage. I think they have, but I won't hold anyone's feet to the fire. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the game without a doubt has more than enough coverage, the problem is does the company? Try finding a single source about Valhalla that isn't just talking about the release of that game with a mention as to Valhalla as the creator. I guess I could see the argument that at this time, that game is what defines the company and any source talking about the game could also be considered "extensive coverage" for the studio, I guess I'm on the fence about it now. I'll wait and see what others have to say that might sway me one direction or the other, but my mind is more open to keeping this article than it was before. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very reasonable of you; your analysis is pretty spot on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 articles in Gamebusiness.jp, one on the formation of the studio, one reporting they will announce a new title at E3 2010 (no mention of what the game was) and one on the game Devil's Third. [31]126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I'm the person who reinstated the article and I'm not the author of the original article. Nice insinuating there though - if you know you're on unsteady grounds, focus less on facts and instead attempt smear tacticts. The fact that Valhalla have been around for 6 years and have received a lot of coverage in both Japanese and English tells me they are bigger than their founder. They/their games have been mentionde in Famitsu a bunch of times, I get 76 googits for site:famitsu.com "ヴァルハラゲームスタジオ". To claim they're not notable seems ridiculous.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a misunderstanding here, btw. I didn't contend the speedy deletion, I restored an old version of the page which had a "speedy deletion" tag (and was subsequently made a redirect to one of the foudners). When I realized I had included the tag by mistake, I made a 2nd edit to remove it.126.59.94.184 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — 126.59.94.184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of all I said "likely the original author" not "definitely the original author." There's a big difference, and anyone looking at the edit history can see why I might reasonably suspect that. Second, I would be more inclined to believe you if multiple socks hadn't already edited the page and caused an admin to semi-protect it, and then the first IP (you) to edit the article after the protection expired reverts the community consensus redirect and puts back all the old info that was repeatedly nominated for speedy/changed into a redirect by several other editors and admins. Finally, your first contributions to Wikipedia were to undo a redirect, and include and edit summary on Valhalla Game Studios? Obviously this is not the first time you've edited on Wikipedia. So instead of continued edit warring in the article that has happened historically I brought it to AfD where a conclusive consensus could be reached by the community, there is no reason for you to take offense to it. If you bothered to read the previous comments in the AfD you would see that I have changed my view and think they article may be worth keeping. Although I still have some WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON concerns, either way, there is no reason for you to come here and attack my nomination. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's enough coverage to justify an article, as several aspects of the company have been covered by many sources. (Itagaki's leaving his prior company to start this one up, the problems with THQ's closure, Nintendo working with the company to save one of its projects, etc. The company may not have any game output, but they've certainly been through a lot, and it's been documented by third party reliable sources. There's enough to write an article here, it just needs a lot of cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 18 March 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 01:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay MacMillan[edit]

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

Falls under too soon I think for this actor. Wgolf (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GSK (t • c) 00:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 March 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 01:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Airways Association[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid - Wikipedia is not a blog. Article has no references to published reliable sources. JMHamo (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and violates WP:NOR. This is the author's family history without any backup by published reliable sources. An independent search found nothing. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd be willing to reconsider if any reliable sources could be found, but as it stands this article violates WP:V and WP:OR, and it would need a WP:TNT-style rewrite to be anywhere near appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a lot of work but Wikipedia is not a killer. Seems like this airline is not a fake but really existed. Just because Wikipedia is monopolized by young people, some oldsters might know more and guide us. I did find a reference about this airline. At worst, it should be redirected so as not to destroy the photos and text. It is very destructive to delete because then only admins can look at deleted contents, it is too hard for other people. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:47, 13 March 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 GMA Network radio stations. The article does not meet the criteria for notability. Nakon 01:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWWQ[edit]

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

Here we go for the third time. Last AfD was closed with consensus to turn this page into a redirect. It was later recreated in the draft namespace, and after 6 months moved back to the main namespace. The only difference between this new version and the previous one is the addition of two sources. One is the station's quarterly report (not an independent source), other one just mentions the station in passing, under a different name. Notability is still not established. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is better to help improve this article become better rather than redirect or delete it. Nikbert16 (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some information in this article are valid. The references use in this article are also use in other articles like in DWLS, List of GMA Network radio stations and others. Jadine04 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Neither source demonstrates notability. Vrac (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GMA Network radio stations. Pax 09:58, 11 March 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 Spánverjavígin. Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Iceland[edit]

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

A list of one item is not a list The Banner talk 00:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of three related articles that the OP has nominated. The others are:

-Arb. (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of actual massacres in Iceland, it's small wonder that reliable sources don't actually discuss this as a topic. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be a redirect to massacre itself on the page for iceland rather than a "list" Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of one item is not a list, it is a fork of the article being "listed." Carrite (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the one article listed, to preserve the completeness of the navigational template of massacres by country and the likely search term, until such time as it can be expanded with additional verifiable entries. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was an isolated list I might be inclined to agree with the OP and advocate redirect. However, it seems to me that lists that are part of a series are a special case. Think of it from a reader's point of view. Suppose a reader is working through the {{Massacres}} navbox (go view it if you haven't) looking at various entries; after clicking two or three their expectation is that each will take them to a List of ... article. So what are the possibilities with a list of one:
- Delete; they see a red link in the Navbox.
- Redirect; they are taken to an article. And have to pause from the task in hand to wonder why. If they are experienced in Wikipedia they may eventually figure it out but they may not. In User Interface Design jargon we've "confounded their expectations"; something to be avoided where possible.^[1]
- Keep; they are taken to a list of one item. They can immediately see that Wikipedia only has one Massacre article for that country and continue with whatever it is they are doing without a diversion into meta-think or puzzlement.

-Arb. (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spánverjavígin, the only entry, or History of Iceland if it would be appropriate to mention the former there. Certainly a list of one, as with a list of zero, is not an appropriate topic for a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following was copied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres in Jamaica as that AfD ends first.-Arb. (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An idea @Arb: (and others), I've just created Draft:List of massacres by country and added the tables from the three nominated articles. This is a distinct topic from list of events named massacres as all that is required is sources call these massacres rather than being named as such. Now any list of one can be added here (along with the rest) as an appropriate redirect target. I don't have time to work on it right now, but will later if others like this idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rhododendrites:. The trouble with that approach is that there are approximately ninety (90) List of massacres in <country> articles so done properly your suggestion would produce an article with that many headings, all but three of which had under them only a link to a {{Main}}; that brings its own problems of maintainability, etc.

And all because a few editors are uncomfortable with the idea of a list with only one item. And yet such things turn up all the time in the real world, particularly when they are part of a series of lists; think text books, computer programs, etc. Interestingly, List states "A list is any enumeration of a set of items." I'm pretty sure that "any enumeration" can include one. -Arb. (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text -Arb. (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

Comment Saying a list can be a list of zero is starting to verge on the ridiculous. By that logic, I could create any list I wanted, saying I was simply waiting for examples to come along, regardless of the lack of reliable sources about the topic (which is the real issue with this list). Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly. And that wasn't my intention; edited comment above to clarify as it's in danger of creating a red herring. Talking of red herrings, if there's a problem with sources that'd be in the linked article; List of articles with blue links only do not themselves need sources, for obvious reasons. -Arb. (talk) 22:54, 18 March 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 2009 Guinea protest. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Guinea[edit]

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

a list of one item is not a list The Banner talk 00:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of three related articles that the OP has nominated. The others are:

-Arb. (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be a redirect page if this is something actually often searched... Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of one item is not a list, it is a fork of the article being "listed." Carrite (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the one article listed, to preserve the completeness of the navigational template of massacres by country and the likely search term, until such time as it can be expanded with additional verifiable entries. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was an isolated list I might be inclined to agree with the OP and advocate redirect. However, it seems to me that lists that are part of a series are a special case. Think of it from a reader's point of view. Suppose a reader is working through the {{Massacres}} navbox (go view it if you haven't) looking at various entries; after clicking two or three their expectation is that each will take them to a List of ... article. So what are the possibilities with a list of one:
- Delete; they see a red link in the Navbox.
- Redirect; they are taken to an article. And have to pause from the task in hand to wonder why. If they are experienced in Wikipedia they may eventually figure it out but they may not. In User Interface Design jargon we've "confounded their expectations"; something to be avoided where possible.^[1]
- Keep; they are taken to a list of one item. They can immediately see that Wikipedia only has one Massacre article for that country and continue with whatever it is they are doing without a diversion into meta-think or puzzlement.

-Arb. (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of events named massacres which links to the one article this links to (as "28 September massacre"). Certainly a list of one, as with a list of zero, is not an appropriate topic for a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An idea - I've just created Draft:List of massacres by country and added the tables from the three nominated articles. This is a distinct topic from list of events named massacres as all that is required is sources call these massacres rather than being named as such. Now any list of one can be added here (along with the rest) as an appropriate redirect target. I don't have time to work on it right now, but will later if others like this idea. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The trouble with that approach is that there are approximately ninety (90) List of massacres in <country> articles so done properly your suggestion would produce an article with that many headings, all but three of which had under them only a link to a {{Main}}; that brings its own problems of maintainability, etc.

And all because a few editors are uncomfortable with the idea of a list with only one item. And yet such things turn up all the time in the real world, particularly when they are part of a series of lists; think text books, computer programs, etc. Interestingly, List states "A list is any enumeration of a set of items." I'm pretty sure that "any enumeration" can include one. -Arb. (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

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.

[1] ttp://www.fastbikesmag.com/2013/12/09/baron-von-grumble-interview/

[Krug-2] Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

[Krug-3] Krug, Steve (2005-08-18). Don't Make Me Think: A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability (Second ed.). New Riders. ISBN 978-0321344755.

[1]

[1]

[1]