Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 March	16 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 keep. JodyB_talk 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Heussenstamm[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Appears to be about a music teacher and guitarist. A search failed to find enough reliable or independent coverage; most of what I could find are links to books authored or co-authored by him. Being popular on YouTube isn't a good claim to notability either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Heussenstamm can be considered a notable guitar instructor. Consider why his youtube channel gets decent traffic and why Hal Leonard Corporation included him in the 3 instructional DVDs mentioned. His book with Hal Leonard, Guitar Workout, and then the follow-up with 5 other publications, should be considered to grant him notability by wikipedia's first criterion for musician's and ensembles: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Considering that there are 6 publications mentioned, how would this not be notable? The possible grey area is the last condition, "independent from the musician or ensemble itself." To justify why John Heussenstamm may pass this condition consider the rationale from the note placed on this criterion by wikipedia: "The rationale for this is easy to see – someone simply talking about themselves in their own personal blog, website, book publisher, social networking site or music networking site, etc., does not automatically mean they have sufficient attention in the world at large to be called notable. If that was so then everyone could have an article. Wikipedia is not a directory." If this is the concern of the first criterion, than clearly it does not apply to John Heussenstamm, because Hal Leonard Corporation and himself are not the same entity. He has been recognized by them. In addition, at some point, youtube popularity will also build notability. --Foreverstocks (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 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, Mr. Guye (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just added an article and a profile/interview with him about his career that ran in Guitar International. Heussenstamm seems to be a figure in the guitar world with just enough coverage in reliable newspapers to pass notability - more notable as a teacher than as a musician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sourcethe Orange County Register ran a long profile (bio, career, review, interview, and discussion of his charitable work on behalf of funding public school music education) of him in 2006, accessed on Proquest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:46, 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. Michig (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ashcroft[edit]

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

Author contested BLP PROD by adding invalid references (the references only say "Episode:- "(episode name here)"") ToonLucas22 (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable--search turns up basic evidence that she is an actress with some credited roles, but no proof that she meets notability criteria under even WP:BASIC. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed are confusing and don't show WP:BASIC. They seem to be their own reference. --Rent A Troop (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Using episodes of certain shows (I'm assuming what those references are) I'm pretty sure doesn't qualify as references.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 17:26, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April A Taylor[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. Most of the interviews about her are in non-notable fan websites devoted to horror. As a goth geek myself, I'm not seeing much that qualifies her to have her own Wikipedia article. Doesn't appear to have work in any major collections or to have illustrated or created projects for anything notable, or exhibited anywhere notable, blahblahblah. And no coverage in reliable sources. But, perhaps someone else knows something that i don't :) Thanks! Missvain (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 8 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the reasons given in the nom--even pretty substantial searching didn't bring up much beyond the non-notable fan sites, minor convention appearances, etc., so clearly not meeting WP:CREATIVE criteria. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 01:05, 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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antonius Quodt[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG; seems promotional. No German-lang article. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a German language article but it was deleted: [1](equivalent to CSD A7 I think). AllyD (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches have turned up very little aside from a brief mention in relation to the first Luminale festival; clearly the subject is a professional working in his field but there is not enough for WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO encyclopaedic notability. (It is also worth mentioning that the picture uploaded and used on the page also appears attributed to a photographer on this copyrighted page.) AllyD (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 8 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:20, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buyer Beware![edit]

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

Once-off show from several years ago sourced mainly to the network's website (which doesn't even work). The most unusual thing about it was that a charity issued a press release, while the last episode "mysteriously failed to air" and "vanished from the television schedule for no apparent reason"! Greykit (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it did win an IFTA Award (on a side note, that article needs serious cleaning for promotional prose), so that may be enough to pass guidelines on that basis. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nix that- I misread the page. I thought it'd won, but apparently it was only nominated and nominations can't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:15, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Cartoons[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just looked over this. This isn't 5 guys who sang together at a bar once and called themselves a band. Is this nom a joke and I missed it? - jc37 21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this might have been a bit hasty. I understand that the article looks bad, but there's coverage in reliable sources. There's a bit at the Vancouver Sun, including [2] and [3]; quite a few hits at Animation Magazine, such as [4] (but many look like press releases); and quite a lot of hits at Animation World Network, such as [5] and [6]. They also hit Variety in a couple articles that are admittedly a bit skimpy, such as [7]. Even if you discarded the Vancouver Sun results as local coverage and the Variety hits as trivial mentions, there'd still be quite a lot left at the animation-specific sites. I think this article needs cleanup and expansion rather than deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 13 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the convincing arguments above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mansi Dovhal[edit]

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

Subject of the article fail WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in reliable sources that established the subject notability, perhaps WP:TOOSOON if ever. WP:IMDB is not a reliable sources. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nominator failed to notice the coverage provided in the article itself. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of subject on wikipedia is beyond a passing mention and notability is not inherited. Evidence of subject notability is not the same as evidence of subject existence. Evidence of subject notability requires a wide discussions of the subject in multiple independent reliable sources. A passing mention is enough for evidence of subject existence which you had shown in your article under deletion discussion here. When she becomes notable for her work in the future, we may consider a stand-alone article but too soon to be a subject of encyclopedic. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources provided is just an evidence that she's doing her job as a non-notable actress and not an evidence of meeting our inclusion criteria.

I took my time to check the references/sources one-by-one. Ref 1 is WP:IMDB and that is not a reliable source. Ref 2 discussed the movie titled "Rakhtbeej" in detail and not the subject of the article. Ref 5 is a mere photo-gallery of Aamir Khan. Ref 4 and 6 discussed the same Aamir Khan in detail with a passing mention of the subject of this article and everyone will agree with me that notability is not inherited. Ref 7 look promising but not enough to merit an encyclopedic article for now, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion

Comment: Wikicology: In response to what you stated above, I have left a message on your talk page. You really need to understand the reasons better before putting any more articles for deletion since your track record on WP:AfD is very poor and 57% of your nominations failed and you have just increased work for other editors. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, learn to use wikilinks. "Significant coverages" means that the reliable sources must address the subject directly and in detail and not just a passing mention.

Your lack of experience makes it concerning. Your obvious lack of understanding with regard to basic policies and guidelines makes it a problem but I will WP:AGF and that is why I will ignore the personal attacks here and on my talk page. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikicology: My lack of experience? Have you given a good look at your experience and your past record? You must have the commonsense to understand that this is deletion discussion page and hence I left message on your talk page for other matters. Once again, you started spamming my page with attacks and now are putting a lazy nomination for WP:Afd. Furthermore and understand that you are an experienced user who is desperate to adopt new users, but try that somewhere else and don't start preaching me on how to use learn to use wikilinks. You have no business to become my mentor of some sort. Stop the unsolicited guidance immediately. If you don't want people to leave messages on your talk page advising you not to perform certain action; then to begin with don't do that to others. I don't wish to indulge in any further discussion with you and would appreciate if you stop this act of hostility and acting smart. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the fact that all wikipedia veterans were once inexperienced at one time but the ability to learn makes them a better wikipedian. Learning is a continues process here on wikipedia, hence my username Wikicology. I agree that editors cannot know everything in a day, even for the first few years on wikipedia. Sorry that am a bit blunt with you and I will appreciate it if we focus on the article under discussion. I will ignore and remove the personal attack on my talk page. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikicology, it was not an attack as you are trying to term it. I left a message for you for what you did and have been trying to do. Don't come across as Mr. I Know It All. When I had a doubt; I asked you for help; didn't I? Arrogance and constantly being on someone's tail with the intention to pin the person wont take you anywhere - be rest assured of that. I am on Wikipedia because I like contributing here and getting into useless discussion is the last thing I want. For the last time, stop using careful words like attack etc to make your case valid. I did not start this sheer waste of time; you did and you need to step up and own it. Don't do it next time; I was trying to avoid having this discussion on the WP:AfD but since you wanted to keep your Talk Page clean, you are forcing a discussion here. I am sure you know what are the guidelines of deleting discussions from Talk Page are; don't you? My advice to you again is stop wasting people's time as you are doing right now by taking a discussion out of your Talk Page and putting it on WP:AfD discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Once again familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before you engaged in any argument in the future. If you are familiar with policies and guidelines, you will be aware that editors have the right to remove contents from their talk page.

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages. The removal of material from a user talk page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. Please read WP:REMOVED.Again, focus on this AfD discussion! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikicology, you are impossible and wont learn !!!!! Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've hatted this section of off-topic discussion. It really has nothing to do with the subject or the AFD and doesn't help anyone establish any form of consensus. If you have something AFD-related to contribute, please (by all means) do so. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to allow the subject to pass WP:GNG. Passing reference to her in articles about other actors and other films isn't "significant coverage". There is nowhere near enough biographical information there with which to build a reliably sourced article with verified claims. I suppose it might be possible for her to pass WP:NACTOR if it can be demonstrated that the roles she has had are significant enough. But the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers. There is no way to know if her roles were major roles or minor roles and what little coverage there is doesn't tell us anything. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Stalwart111: Actress has played lead / major roles in movies and have been credited to her as cited in references provided. What has the commercial success of a movie got to do with notability; can you please explain your remark "...the films in question are in worse shape than hers"? It might be a coincidence but I noticed that the nominator of this article and you have some history together. At this point, I am not saying this is a case of WP:GANG and am merely highlighting the observation. I am surprised to note that a nominator makes a mistake, then instead of correcting it ignores the references provided despite his own terrible personal record and now I have to see this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, two people disagreeing with you isn't a tag-team. I've made exactly one comment in this discussion; this is my second. We don't have "history together"; we were both drawn into the same (major) sock-puppetry investigation involving what could turn out to be one of Wikipedia's most prolific sock-puppeteers and efforts by dozens of editors (which happens to include the two of us) and admins to stop him. I regularly participate at AFD (as noted on my user page) and so my participation here is not at all out of the ordinary. Assumptions of bad faith and attempts to drag this discussion away from the topic at hand won't help. All of that aside, if you read carefully, I said, "the articles for the films in question are in worse shape than hers". WP:NACTOR requires, significant roles in multiple notable films. It's not clear to me whether any of those films are notable, given most of their articles are unreferenced. The one source used for the majority of content in this article would seem to be at last partially based on this article (or the other way around) and possibly user-generated. IMDB and other sources like it are not considered reliable sources. Even then, that one single instance of significant coverage wouldn't be enough anyway. So we don't have enough for WP:GNG and we can't make a determination with regard to WP:NACTOR. If you can stick to the topic at hand (rather than conspiracy theories) I'm happy to consider whatever you can bring forward in either regard. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111: To begin with, I never accused you for anything; just stated my observation (read up). Don't get me wrong please. Coming back to the subject, this news article about movie Trump Card clearly mentions her as the female lead (same words quoted) whereas this article about movie Rakhtbeej talks about her role in the film which by any means is not a "day role" or "cameo". Another write-up talks about summary of some of her work. Aren't these significant roles in multiple movies? Four of her movies have articles on Wikipedia; well if the films were not notable; why would the pages exist. Discussion about quality of the movie is totally irrelevant for this discussion. Trust this explains. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing at that dead body over there and then at the person over here. I'm not saying he did it, it's just my observation. Best just to steer well clear of anything even remotely accusatory, yeah?

Because people can create articles about non-notable things so the sourcing becomes circular. She is notable because the films have articles and the films are notable because the actors have articles. When in reality, none of them are notable. That's why Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. There's one article about the first film, yes, but it doesn't talk about her role - it says she was the female lead. It simply lists her name without explaining whether it was a significant role. Being the female lead in a mostly all-male B-grade film wouldn't count for much. If the role was significant, it's a different story, but we would need reliable sources that say as much. It's not about the quality of the film or the film's article but about the significance of the film. The second film barely has an article and only the subject here is linked from the cast list. The source you provide says quite plainly that, "The film can't boast of established stars, so the item number by Rakhi Sawant is its biggest attraction" which actually suggests all of the other actors in the film aren't notable, even by local Hindi film standards. So we don't have reliable sources that suggest she is notable but we have at least one that suggests she isn't. I've explained the concerns about the IMUSTI source, but you've not addressed those - you've just listed it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111: So this is what I understood from your last message. 1) That the non-notable films and the actors are in sort of loop and supporting each other for notability whereas standalone none of them are notable. So this actor and all the movies she has worked in are non-notable? 2) Lead role in a movie is NOT significant role. 3) Actors who do not perform lead roles in notable movies should not have an article?? 4) Being lead B grade movie does not qualify for GNG or ACTOR?? 5) Sources like Times of India and The Hindu are not reliable and independent. 6) Significance: What exactly is significance? 7) Rakhi Sawant is the biggest attraction; and what exactly is the point?? By that standard, 50% of Bollywood movies should not have an article on Wikipedia.

What I am trying to understand which rule, policy or guideline of Wikipedia confirms your interpretation above? Let me assure you that I am the last person to keep an unwarranted article on Wikipedia. Last year I created a page for Mehr Tarar and I immediately realized that perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia and nominated it for deletion. What you are writing above is your own interpretation of the situation and you are ignoring facts. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if there is some sort of language barrier or if you're being sarcastic. I'm happy for others to point out where I went wrong (I think I explained myself fairly clearly) but you've managed to misinterpret almost everything I've written. 1) It happens, so we rely on outside sources rather than WP articles. 2) A lead role is only significant if it is in a notable film, yes (WP:NACTOR). 3) If they fail WP:NACTOR as a result and also fail WP:GNG, no they should not. 4) That's often the case, though it is irrelevant to WP:GNG which doesn't consider such things. 5) Of course they are, but the articles still need to provide "significant coverage", more than just a name-check. 6) WP:SIGCOV. 7) Yes, just like 50% of Hollywood films (the B- and C-grade stuff) that don't have articles on Wiipedia. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:29, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing reliable sources giving the subject significant coverage either. If this actress was notable, there'd be articles and interviews discussing her. Where are they? Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:35, 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 delete. Nakon 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Aybinder[edit]

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

For this article, started by single-purpose account Emil Aybinder (hmm, no conflict of interest there!), it would be useful to have some source that is neither the subject's official site, nor the site of his employer. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:SPAM pure and simple. Obvious COI by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a speedy G12 copyvio from [8] but for now I'll remove the copyvio content. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find any coverage, so fails all the relevant notability guidelines. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 22 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 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Berdysheff[edit]

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

The article makes no real claim of significance, and is an unsourced stub. I cannot nominate it for BLP:PROD because it was created in 2007, otherwise I would. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pages sourced only to the subjects personal website should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 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. As there have been no reliable sources presented covering the subject directly and in detail, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Ednie-Brown[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and the professor test. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the text content demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG and with the professor test. Sources that have been added are reliable but have only been listed as web addresses- need to include more detail about these sources. More cross referencing and links to external pages could help prove her validity in relation to these concerns Alysiab (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, article contents does not demonstrates the notability of a subject. Articles are included in the encyclopedia on the basis of notability not on the basis of the article content. While you familiarize with basics policy before leaving a vote or comments at AfD, you may consider to read WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:RS. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Which part of WP:PROF do you think she meets, Alysiab? -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Thank you and apologies for not clarifying this above [[User:Sam Sailor] Sam Sailor], I'm very new to wikipedia editing. I think she is particularly notable in respect to Criteria 9 in as she meets most of the notability standards for WP:CREATIVE, as evident it the large body of academic output listed on the page, a particularly prolific output for the field of architecture. If you need further clarification, please let me know. Alysiab (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Alysiab (talk · contribs) also left the above keep argument word-for-word at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandra_kaji-o'grady. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ACADEMIC. no third party sources, no major awards , no significant peer recognition. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: While this person may be notable, the sources present in the article don't back that up. In particular, none of the listed sources seem independent of the subject. If better sources were added, this article could probably be kept. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the topic; a first time contributor. A group of us (all first time contributors bar one) got together as there were less than 10 female Australian architects listed on Wikipedia and we wanted to make wiki content more representative. Its a little unfortunate therefore that a lot of the entries we added are flagged for deletion due to being 'not notable enough' - though I understand Wikipedia has policies on this that has nothing to do with gender. We are continuing to add to the entries in question to ensure that they comply with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janecaught (talk • contribs) 11:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Janecaught (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:47, 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 01:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawtee RE[edit]

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

Extremely advertorial-toned WP:BLP of a rapper with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. In addition, the sourcing here is overwhelmingly bloggy, not even approaching the outermost edges of the amount of reliable source coverage it would take to claim WP:GNG instead of NMUSIC — even the one "source" which counts for more than the others in principle, hiphopcanada.com, actually just links to that publication's front splash page rather than to any actual content about her. (And if I do a content search on her name once I'm there, I still just hit a handful of blurbs which confirm her existence, and nothing in the way of substantive coverage for anything that could put her over NMUSIC.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if she can actually be properly sourced as accomplishing something that satisfies NMUSIC, but this as written is an advertisement for a person who's trying to become notable, not an encyclopedia article about a person who's already there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In complete agreement with all of the points brought up in the nom. Heavily promotional tone, and a search doesn't turn up much evidence of reliable, independent sources that could support notability under with WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage from independent RS's in article or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 22 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 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modularist[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.. no third party references to establish notability JMHamo (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose a redirect to Analog synthesizer, since that's the page that synthesist redirects to, and the article states that modularist is "[a] more precise description of the term synthesist". Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This is an essay. I was only able to find a couple of passing mentions to "modularist" in this sense in published sources. There were many more for "modularist" with reference to Language module and cognitive science. The main point is playing skills, so if any sources exist that could be added to Modular synthesizer. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 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 deleted as G12 speedy by JodyB (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.in2itive.net.au/sustainability-infocus/the-blue-economy-a-truly-holistic-approach). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Economy: Design Theory[edit]

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

In my opinion, this is mere soapboxing. The article has barely any references apart from the original source. Plus, it seems like it's a duplicate of the (slightly less dubious) The Blue Economy. bender235 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to The Blue Economy. We don't need two articles about the same book. Leave out the Citations section, which is just blurbs from the book. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Copy-vio spam. Pax 07:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made in over 14 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capital D[edit]

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

Axed TV show sourced only to the network and websites of some companies which appeared on it (most of these links don't even work) and one cursory mention in a possibly independent source. The most significant part of this show seems to be the presenter moving to another show. This detail can be adequately covered on the pages of this other show and the presenter (and, indeed, already is). Greykit (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 8 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, czar ⨹ 22:24, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook Hockey League[edit]

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

Unreferenced articles about a amateur hockey league which does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable, long standing, Senior hockey league. Allan Cup national championship contending teams. Produced multiple national champions, a lot of NHL alumni. DMighton (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' not exactly the most important hockey league in the universe but plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Some is already in the article, other sources that could be added include [9] and [10]. There's plenty of evidence of day-to-day coverage [11]. Pichpich (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very notable league, generally produces an Allan Cup winner. Heck, in some places I believe local coverage is better than half of the lower level professional leagues out there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely the coverage to meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a ton of coverage out there, definitely enough to comply with WP:GNG. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 01:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Plain Eagles[edit]

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

Unreferenced amateur hockey team article, which does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice Hockey-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Allan Cup national championship winning team, no shortage of potential sources. DMighton (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's obvious ample coverage (and not just debarred match reports) in numerous media sources: [12]. Did the nom bother with WP:BEFORE? Ravenswing 05:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Did the nom try WP:BEFORE as Ravenswing mentions. -14:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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. I'm willing to userfy this upon request. Nakon 01:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deybi Flores[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an unsupported claim to general notability and speculation as to future appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in what way User:Sir Sputnik is listing a source [13] defined as an unsupported claim. It's clearly a supported claim - whether you agree with the claim or not is another matter, but it seems highly disingenuous and prejudiced to claim there was no support of the claim! Furthermore speculation about his inevitable future appearance was justification that article should be moved to Draft Space rather than deleted. Why didn't you simply move it to Draft Space? Nfitz (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided does not, in my opinion, support the claim to notability, not least of all because one source is never sufficient to establish general notability. I did not mean to imply that there was no attempt to support the claim, but rather that the attempt to do so failed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not then simply move the article to Draft space? It's the perfect candidate, given his current status. Probably won't start within days or weeks (unlike some unfortunate nominations of recently-signed 3rd level USL players). But likely in better standing with the team, given he hasn't been sent to the USL squad. Nfitz (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Not keen on moving to draftspace as I do not think we want to encourage an environment whereby people can freely create as many articles on non-notable players they like and keep them in draft in perpetuity. Draftspace should be used for drafting articles on already notable subjects, not as a holding pen in anticipation of notability which might never come. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - no sign of him sitting on the bench. Though I would be surprised if he is loaned to Whitecaps FC 2 which has only 10 players currently. Either way, there's no clear path yet so let's put the article in draft space where it can be prepared and moved over when he makes a fully professional appearance. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 21 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, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Stewart (Louisiana)[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being president of a school district in Louisiana. Of the six sources, 3 are from findagrave.com, 1 is from Minden Memories (turn your speakers off first), and the last is from "Respect for the Past; Confidence in the Future: Webster Parish Centennial, 1871-1971, Webster Parish Police Jury". No evidence whatsoever of significant third-party reliable source coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All on-line sources have been used. Other sources would be off-line, most likely in the 1910s or 1949. Notable historical figure, second generation settler of Webster Parish, of prominent local family with roots in North Carolina and Alabama. Farmer and local official. Namesake of former elementary school. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Namesake of an elementary school. Adequate sources showing in the footnotes to pass GNG. We are not here to determine whether a historical figure's impact was "major enough," but rather whether sufficient published independent sources of presumed reliability exist to support a verifiable biography. this has it. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 20 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Generals[edit]

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

Article about minor hockey which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The references in the article are more about notable people having something to do with the Bentley Generals then about the team itself and notability is not inherited. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Two-time Allan Cup winning national champions, nationwide press, multiple NHL alumni. In national championship almost every year. DMighton (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article are already sufficient to establish notability. There's also ample evidence of some day-to-day coverage [14] Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very strong keep. The references in the article are already strong enough to indicate notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:25, 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 Sugar & Spice (Mýa album). MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise (Mýa song)[edit]

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

The song was redirected to the album article for failing WP:NSONGS in November 2010. Last month, the article was recreated with slight changes to the infobox and a paragraph about the production with one new source from the CD booklet. The song still fails WP:NSONGS since the only chart it charted on was Japanese iTunes, which is not a chart that should even be listed in the article per WP:CHARTS, and the article has no reliable sources, so there is no notability for the song and there is not enough material to have a reasonably sized article. Aspects (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. SilentDan (talk) 07:45, 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 merge to Rupert Kathner. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Brooks[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. According to the article, "best known for her association with Rupert Kathner." "References" are trivial mentions of the subject. Notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject to probable merge and redirect to Rupert Kathner; her role appears to have been integral to Kathner's story. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 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, Davewild (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge and redirect. The bulk of what is said here in this article is already said on the Rupert Kathner page. Maybe a section in the Rupert Kathner page that headlines "Association with Alma Brooks" for example because 5 sentences in the Alma page mentions her association with Kathner. --Rent A Troop (talk) 08:47, 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 National Touch League. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane City Cobras[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 8 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, Davewild (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to National Touch League. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 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.

{{subst:afd3|pg=William G. Stewart (Louisiana)}

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OFK Jugović Kać[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Despite the storied history, this club does not appear to meet WP:FOOTYN or WP:N. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Severely fails WP:GNG Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - very low level, regional football club, no evidence of satisfying WP:FOOTYN let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:16, 20 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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Américo Martins Pereira Júnior[edit]

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

Non-notable football player, article lacks adequate references to meet WP:GNG KDS4444^Talk 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; per Soccerway he has played in Campeonato Brasileiro Série A which is a WP:FPL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has played in a fully pro league meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giantsnowman has played in WP:FPL passes WP:NSPORT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played in a fully-pro league. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snow. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Cipriani[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP. No references and the one external link is to a related source. The Banner talk 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very interesting. This stub was created in the exact same format as the mass-produced pageant bios by now-blocked editors. I have a bad feeling about this. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There seems to be two schools of thought about this. One school is that winners of national pageants who go on to compete at Miss Universe or Miss World are notable. E.g. see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_May_17#Aynur_Toleuova, which was a keep. Also it seems that all of her recent predecessors as Miss Ecuador have articles. The other school is that they have to meet GNG. @The Banner: have you considered proposing an RfC on this, going through the past few years of AfD, so that we could add it to WP:Outcomes? It seems like we should have some kind of guideline on this, instead of outcomes depending on who shows up to !vote. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No! Reason for that is WP:BLP and WP:RS. And in contrast to your link, you have also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonie Chisholm, ending in a delete. So every contestant to a pageant (and in fact every pageant) should be just on their own merits. The Banner talk 01:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved and better sourced since this nomination was made. I have further cleaned up the grammar, spelling, and formatting as well as adding additional sources from national newspapers:"Francesca Cipriani siempre tuvo actitud de ganadora". La Hora (in Spanish). Quito. 15 March 2015. Retrieved 16 March 2015. and Tapia, Evelyn (15 March 2015). "Cipriani, una belleza contra estereotipos". El Comercio (in Spanish). Quito: Grupo El Comercio. Retrieved 16 March 2015.. - Dravecky (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Although better, it is still not okay. For example, the link to La Hora is a dead link. And Global Beauties and Anglopedia are not the reliable, independent sources that are needed conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh? The La Hora link I posted above is working just fine. (Just checked it 20 seconds ago.) I acknowledge the weakness of the Global Beauties and Anglopedia but left them in as they're English language coverage of a story out of Ecuador. In any case, the multiple reliable sources in Spanish are good old fashioned mainstream newspapers and are more than sufficient for WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting, must have been a glitch on La Hora. The Banner talk 14:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the extra references and sources added per Dravecky. I agree meets WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:35, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zuanxu[edit]

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

Can't establish notability with reliable, independent sources. Please note that the one reference in this article does not lead to any substantive information. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with major expansion from zh:王纘緒, which uses six cited books and pieces of historic records. A high-ranking general and significant involvement in Second Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War for WP:SOLDIER. PS. This is the second Sino-Japanese War general AfD I see since Dong Zhao in a very short interval now. Maybe experts from related projects can deal with these notable stub-stubs once and for all? 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be thrilled to see experts from related projects take on some of these stub articles--this article, for example, has been tagged for notability and expansion since 2008! (Maybe because available sources are not in English, which can be...challenging...) Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources for WP:BASIC.Antigng (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you even bother looking at the interwiki links? Passes WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had difficulty finding this article on the other language wikis so I searched some of the academic databases I have access to and couldn't find anything--that's why I questioned notability. Hisashiyarouin linked to the appropriate article and it's now easy to see how Zuanxu passes given the information provided at zh:王纘緒. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be mystified at the number of editors who feel qualified to propose articles for deletion but are not experienced enough on Wikipedia to follow interwiki links. At the bottom of the lefthand column of the article, under the header "Languages", you will find links to the article on both Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias. Just a friendly suggestion, but why not get some more editing experience in before you try to get articles deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SOLDIER. Whaterss (talk) 00:48, 21 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2004. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smith (Kentucky)[edit]

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

Politician who did not win elected office. Articles lacks reliable independent sources. TM 16:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~United States House of Representatives elections, 2004#Kentucky~~ United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2004. A redirect is an appropriate and usual outcome for a losing candidate in a federal election WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completly fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a source to Ron Lewis article.Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Enos733. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:23, 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. WP:SNOW, effectively a personal essay in list form. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Military Leaders[edit]

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

I feel that this article is necessarily original research because "greatest" is a personal opinion. Therefore, there is no objective way to state "this is what an article with this title is about". Alternatively, an appropriate, well-defined title to which this could be moved would be welcome, but I can't think of one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this page would go against the WP:NPOV. The page would turn into an argument than an article with Example being the greatest military leader. --Rent A Troop (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unfinished stub which has no chance whatsoever of not being classed as both POV and original research in its current form. A "List of Military Leaders" might be more appropriate but would easily become unmanageably long, hence why existing military leadership lists seem to be by country or series of conflicts. Dtellett (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete A Cracked article, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be pretty much impossible to have an article on this topic, and this iteration is one editor's opinion Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a subject that is occasionally covered in books - but those are all opinion. And this one is just one editor's opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 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. Michig (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badrul Hisham Alias[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP only having social media results as far as English sources go (I cannot read Indian, sorry), not to mention WP:COI/autobiography issues with the first creator. Prodded by @331dot: and deprodded by an IP who just added a link to a openly posted resume. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 331dot has reverted the deprod (which I was not confident to surly say) while I was writing this AfD. If that messes things up big time I am sorry in advance. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hisashiyarouin: I didn't see a link to a resume; apologies if you did. Feel free to remove the PROD(which given this page we don't really need). 331dot (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of this diff. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a speedy delete as promotional; but no sources are given to indicate notability or significance, either. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity page created only for promotional purposes, unreferenced BLP. Cavarrone 07:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Well, I did find a possible source, but it didn't appear to be reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:56, 22 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) –Davey2010^Talk 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna Gartner[edit]

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

This has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for 7 years. I can see her paintings sell for a good amount of money, but I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep A surrealist, she shows up in a simple news search [15], artnet [16], simple image search [17], and at Christies [18] - a $10,000 sale is not chump change. Sources must be out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a mention here, plus media attention here. Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:01, 22 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. Michig (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woggie Movie (2012)[edit]

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

This article is about a movie with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. None of the sourcing in the article establishes notability, and I can find no coverage in my own searches. A PROD was removed by the article creator. Based on the user name of the article creator, and the name of the writer/director of this movie, there is a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFILM, no/very little coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 14:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just gave the article a facelift, but chose to not list its many dozens of cast. The thing exists, but lacks coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article clearly fails WP:NFILM. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFILM even with the attempts at reference stuffing through "inherited" notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is referred to twice in Wikipedia on the Ben Woolf page and Kaili Say page. Domiziano Arcangeli also has a role in Woggie and has a wikipedia page. That makes 3 notable actors, one of which, Ben Woolf is featured for 15 minutes. User Gogo dodo keeps deleting all references to my film through Ben Woolf Articles which is not appreciated and when I find out how to accuse of vandalism I will. Another film linked on Ben Woolfs page has the same references and has gone unmolested.I am aware of how films in Hollywood get into blogs and newspapers and film festivals, it's called cash. The users so eager to delete this article are cold and blunt to the point where I really can't blame women for staying off wikipedia. I detect bias by the people wanting to delete an article where the subject is mentioned twice in wikipedia and can be linked to for the curious. There is no bias here, I found the subject of the article was referenced twice in Wikipedia so I created it. To merely make the statements "Do not take it to heart" and "Too close to the subject of article", or "Do not get offended" in the policy pages of Wikipedia has contributed to the editors rude comments and bad manners. Just read the above 5 motions to delete having words like "fail", "unnotable", "unremarkable", "The Thing". A better policy would be to establish a code of friendly statements as to why an article should be deleted, cruel unkind statements and adlibbing should be prohibited. Aberrated (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aberrated (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After dealing with the above hacks I will not be heartbroken if this non-biased article is removed. If being mentioned on Wikipedia twice does not give the subject merit then I guess Wikipedia is not a credible source. I looked up Wikipedia and it appears to have been degraded over the last several years. Please by all means do not "Take it to heart" because you are "Too close to Wickipedia". It is obvious to see evil intentioned people have infiltrated Wickipedia with donations and now run things. I have seen it happen with other sites that "Used to be Credible". Articles for reliable sources and notability can be bought and so can an article on Wikipedia. Great site if you want to slander someone or a topic and leave the creator of the subject powerless to correct it or let the truth be known. Please by all means delete the article, the search engines are full of direct links to the film which people watch and enjoy everyday without someone "Paying the Way" to Notability. If you want please remove all references to the film in Wickipedia. Not once did any of the above hacks ask me if I was close to the subject of the article, instead proposed deletion without trying to work something out. Reveal the Identity - User WHPQ clearly violates Wikipedia policy by trying to out my true identity as the writer/director - Which is a personal attack and could leave me compromised.Aberrated (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article and IMDB both clearly state the name of the writer/director is "Abe R. Rated". You chose the user name "Aberrated", so I fail to see how I have tried to out your true identity. -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reveal the Identity - Once again User Whpq is trying to assume or out an identity of an editor which is against Wickipedia Policy. Not once has he simply asked via private communication. That is a Personal Attack. Can one of the above hacks please correct the Unlucky Charms link on the Ben Woolf page. It is not associated with the link. The film Unlucky Charms can be researched on Ben Woolfs IMDB page. This would be a much more suitable use of your time. Thanks. Aberrated (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:DOXING, it is only considered outing if the information is revealed involuntarily. Since you clearly gave your name out in your username, it is not outing. Esquivalience ^t 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The writer/director of the film Woggie is not named aberrated. Once again the creator of the article was never asked if he/she was tied to the project. If the creator is, the policy of declaring a connection to article in the article should be explained by the questioning editor. People close to the subject of articles are preferred not to create articles and edit but are not prohibited. Still waiting for one of the above hacks to merely ask. Aberrated (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Schmidt that jumped in and contributed to my page in the name of helping, then jumped right in to vote for deletion of article has a conflict of interest. He is an actor currently going for film roles. I question his intentions after viewing his page on Wickipedia Michael Q. Schmidt, it was created by and built up by sock puppets. The sock puppets, too many to list were all under user "LLking". Several actors from the film Woggie are in a film with him called "Caravaggio and my Mother the Pope". He uses LA Casting and I may of even considered him for a role in Woggie, I will have to check my log at LA Casting.I am glad to see he has a page on Wickipedia but his IMDB page lists credited roles in B movies and uncredited extra roles in grade A film. I am not even going to be anal enough to see how many film projects he was involved in made it to Wickipedia pages. I could go on but will end it here. Aberrated (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old news, and not a secret. I have a reputation for using my knowledge of film and television to save many articles such as the one you wrote, and one for NOT writing about projects in which I have conflict of interest. It is not helpful to try to smear those who may be willing to assist. Show this project as meeting WP:NF and I'd support a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please read WP:OWN. Once contributed to Wikipedia, the page is not "yours"... its everyone's. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

@Aberrated: Publicly available through IMDB, the person responsible for the Woggie movie is a person named David Richard Ramsey who bills himself as "Abe R. Rated". The person who wrote the film article being discussed here and who has made many edits to it is you... User:Aberrated. Yes, you could have chosen your username to respect the film and its creator, but as two names are too similar to be a coincidence... and as Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of an affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation, I ask directly... are you filmmaker David Richard Ramsey (known as Abe R. Rated), or not? Do you meet the definitions described under WP:COI, or not? Note: COI is not "forbidden", just discouraged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors contributing to wickipedia have a right to privacy as their true identity does not have to be and should not be divulged unless the editor agrees. Please by all means ask via private message. Woggie the film is viewable for free on IMDB, YouTube, and Vimeo. The film is downloadable and free on the official site and is downloadable and viewable for free on archive.org listed as Creative Commons 3.0 . No financial compensation is going the way of the this editor or the Woggie Film. So the answer is no, I do not qualify for wp:coi because Woggie the film is free for everyone. Aberrated (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS:FILM to better understand the expected format for film articles, and then please read the inclusion criteria for films. To remain, this thing needs actual more-than-trivial coverage in reliable sources... not mentions in blogs or listings in databases. Then read WP:NOTINHERITED to understand that a film's notability is not dependent upon the names of its actors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aberrated, Schmidt has been an editor here for years and he's also an administrator for Wikipedia- not something that is given out lightly or easily. I can personally vouch for his editorial integrity and that he does NOT use Wikipedia as a place to promote himself, nor does he make any edits for personal gain. This extends to AfD arguments as well. If he wasn't as well known on Wikipedia for his integrity then it's possible that he'd be suspect (although the connection is very tenuous and as Schmidt said, the film is free on several websites so there would be no financial gain), but he's been on here since 2008 and is extremely well respected on here. I've interacted with him enough to where I know that if he says that he does not have a COI, then I'll believe that as the truth. The thing about COI is that at its basis the policy asks that if you do have a COI, that you admit this up front and study the policy. This does not mean that you cannot edit or create articles, just that you need to be transparent in all things and that you follow policy extremely closely to avoid any potential issues. I've had more than one instance where I've edited alongside editors who have had a conflict of interest and their edits posed no problem, so it can be done. I also need to concur with some of the others about the doxing policy- this only pertains to situations where there is nothing to substantiate that someone is a specific person or has a likely conflict of interest. For example, your username and the director's pseudonym are identical, so that raises suspicion that you are either the director or someone affiliated with him. (There are also similar situations where someone adopted a username where it is identical to similar usernames used by a director or other person influential with the film.) It is possible that you're just a random fan that chose to name yourself after the director- I've seen it happen in similar situations. However whether or not the COI is valid, the best way to respond to this was to very calmly state whether or not the claims are true. Responding with accusations against the nominator and other editors in the way you have not only violates WP:CIVILITY but it also places incoming editors on the defensive because we will wonder if you will make similar remarks about anyone who disagrees with you. At this point the only way to keep the article is to prove its notability via reliable sources per WP:RS- something that Schmidt was trying to help with prior to arguing for deletion. That's the way he works- he tries to improve the article as he finds sourcing before making his decision. I would like to politely ask that you refrain from commenting on anything other than the article, how it can be improved, and how it passes WP:NFILM by way of reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt emailed me days ago and informed me the article was going to be deleted. I guess the sharks are waiting for the ceremonial 7 days to expire. The article being on Wickipedia does not help the film one bit, it would help Wickipedia users reading about the film in other articles on Wickipedia. As a child I had a set of encyclopedias which due to weight and size the information contained in them had to be key data and highly notable. An encyclopedia on the internet having unlimited storage capacity should be able to cover every person, event or subject that ever existed. Imagine that.Aberrated (talk) 11:37, 22 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. Michig (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rising From The Shadows[edit]

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

This article about a memoir has no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article contains no references and my own search only turns up some sites that have it for sale. a PROD (by another editor) was removed by the article creator. Based on user name, and the memoir's author's name, there is also a conflict of interest. Whpq (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reason I provided in the PROD - the work thoroughly fails WP:NBOOK. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. I have nothing on this one to establish notability and it does look like a COI issue. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 18:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:BASIC (neither does the author) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToriOS[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an operating system. The only possibly reliable source that I could find was this, which is insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ToriOS

This page is still under development, and so do ToriOS. We will update and put more resources in this article time by time. We will follow and use the rules in Wikipedia. Thank you. - Nuxntux 08:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re1: ToriOS

A few relevant sources has been added to support this article, hoped this article will not be deleted or erased. Thank you. - Nuxntux 08:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#1/3/12 are primary sources and doesn't count towards notability. #4/5/6/8/9/11 does not even mention ToriOS. #7/10 are just passing mentions, not withstanding #10 is a forum post and is typically not considered reliable. #2 is not even related to computing, just looks like a desperate attempt of a cite to "support" the etymology. You know what could be a reliable source? This might be (although I couldn't read the language, let's assume that it is not a press release or a run-of-the-mill blog post and is reliable for now) but we are gonna need multiple to keep this. Tentative delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but Wikipedia has inclusion criteria. It looks like it's too soon for this project to get an article on Wikipedia. Once it has significant coverage in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. As it stands, this just isn't there yet. I don't see anything useful in a Google search, and for a Linux distribution, one would expect that to be a major source of information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re2: ToriOS

Ahh, maybe you're right. We are too new to release an article in Wikipedia for this project. We or someone else probably will re-create this article back, as soon it's get a little bit popular and useful. I gonna take that advice, and ya. I will not gonna stop you to delete this article, since we support FOSS and the philosophy. Thanks for spending your precious time to make Wikipedia a place for an accurate and rich sources to use and learn. Have a good day! :) - Nuxntux 23:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your page isn't that much worse than Bodhi Linux, but four years with a logo is better than "planned". Copy the text to a subpage of your user page for a better start in 2017. AFAIK enwiki has no "undelete in 2017" mechanism, unlike the maniacs on commons, they have "undelete in 2130". ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: article makes no claim of notability. Also does not come close to meeting any of the requirements of WP:NSOFT. Being an operating system isn't notable in and of itself. Most undergraduate CS programs around the world have courses involving the creation of an Operating system. In response to the claims regarding Bodhi Linux, I will say that at least Bodhi Linux appears to be in wide enough use that it is listed (even ranked) at distrowatch.org.[19] While I am not making a claim as to whether distrowatch is WP:RS or not, it is among the most popular sites for information about linux distributions, and it ranks distros based on the number of hits the pages receive. That it does not at this time include ToriOS (and I am unable to find any other site with information about ToriOS) it appears to me that this is likely a page made by the creator. ― Padenton |☎ 18:36, 22 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. Michig (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Scanlan[edit]

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

Contested prod from 2009. Non-notable player who fails WP:RLN. No evidence that he played at international level as claimed in the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not play at a level that meets WP:RLN. The claim that he played for England, which was seemingly introduced into the article at some stage in its eight year (!) history, is plainly false. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 20:10, 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. If anyone wants this restored to work on in the future please let me know. Michig (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Redman[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby player who hasn't played at first grade level. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting rid of these kind of articles when the players have left their respective NRL clubs, this one certainly doesn't fit the notability criteria, I've just held off on this one so far because he's still with a club so could potentially become notable within the new season. So it's up to you if you want to remove it now or wait it out until he either debuts or leaves the club. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be restored if and when he debuts. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete: or alternatively could be moved to someone's user space if they want to take it on. Mattlore (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space, still technically on contract so he might get a game yet if the Knights have a huge injury crisis, although it's not looking good. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'll say delete - can easily be remade again if he plays. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:53, 21 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. Michig (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal tattoo design[edit]

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

Article appears to be created solely for advertising purposes. Is unreferenced and inaccurate, and adds nothing to other articles on tattooing. -- haminoon (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be a common iteration, but not notable, WP:GNG. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no difference, really, between "tattoo" and "tattoo design." Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've deleted the advertising link and most of the offensive stuff. Could someone close this per WP:SNOW? -- haminoon (talk) 23:41, 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 Speedily deleted under criteria G4/G5 by User:RHaworth. Michig (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Biswas ( IYSERT)[edit]

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

previously deleted article but memory escapes if it was afd or csd etc. The provided references seem to be all authored by the subject or trivial mentions and will take a fundemental rewrite to bring into line with policies. Does appear to be possibly notable if the article is rewritten. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rakesh Biswas on 24 March 2014. 220 of ^Borg 16:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have now speedied it on this basis, plus the fact that Mr Biswas did a lot of socking to recreate this article with variously mangled titles last year, including this exact title. --McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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 speedy delete. Appears to be a hoax. JodyB_talk 23:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bauva Ex Express[edit]

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

False information. No such airline exists in real world. Niket ★ My Talk Page ★ 12:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:HOAX, no coverage that I could find outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Everymorning talk 14:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax; see this Gsearch. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the creator appears to have a history of creating hoax (or borderline hoax) articles. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to exist and probably a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Luxe[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article lacks independent sources--the sources are press releases, blogs, and/or interviews. Note: prior AfD was withdrawn by nominator, so this has not been fully discussed. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I won't even comment on my last comment there!...., Anyway the sources aren't perfect and I can't find much better on GNews so will have to say Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CORPDEPTH per nom - they may be notable but sourcing is not showing it, and this type of promo article really is best via WP:AFC before being live. Widefox; talk 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator The article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH per [20], [21], [22] not press releases, so the article does not fails WP:CORPDEPTH. May I add [23] and a VOGUE article [24], [25]. --Karlhard (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Karlhard, I am looking right now at the external website where BIKINILUXESWIM paid for this article. Don't you think you should declare your COI? The extent of your promotional editing is truly massive. Here are some of the warnings you deleted from your talk page. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Let us discuss more given that the recent nomination ended up as keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources present seem weak; marketing, self-published, in passing, the usual minor Internet presence of a non-notable but non-hoax company. It's a business, it exists, this doesn't make it encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable--based on PR.The first AfD was closed when the nom withdrew in the face of opposition. It was good that it was renominated. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 21 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 04:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kriser's Natural Pet[edit]

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

Non notable and promotional. The refs are either about the boutique pet food industry as a whole, or mere mentions, or PR. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 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) 05:40, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 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. Michig (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carson[edit]

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

WP:ABOUTSELF Darkstar1st (talk) 02:52, 28 February 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 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the creator of the article is currently blocked [34] Darkstar1st (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

another frequent contributor is also blocked [35] 03:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created ten years ago. Pax 05:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - already went over this May 2009 and I think the same reasons apply. Also, the nominating editor (recently featured on ANI) has a rather controversial track record of erasing content that appears to go against their very vocal personal politics, e.g. to summarize/paraphrase: libertarians just can't be socialists because then they don't want liberty so libertarian socialism clearly isn't a thing. There's an ongoing POV issue. fi (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no we have not been over this. thie current nomination is wp:aboutself, a separate issue from wp:bio, which is about notability in secondary sources. wp:bio does still apply as the article describes him primarily as a political theorist although the only source for such is himself and he is not widely known as such. here is a list of notable theorist: [36]. this nomination is about using sources as sources on themselves, aka wp:aboutself. such is not prohibited, as long as the article is not based primarily on such sources, which the vast majority of this article is, save the mention of his work as poorly researched/understood: familiarity with this list of libertarian authors seems to have been wasted on Carson. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then go to the talk page and suggest how to go about replacing these sources with better ones, which are plentiful. That merits a partial rewrite at most, not deletion. What made you think this is the appropriate way to voice your concerns? fi (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is easy to find 'realiable' sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct because the internet is full of stuff written by Kevin, which is the problem, Kevin is the only one writing about Kevin and you just added another source [37] about Kevin WRITTEN BY KEVIN!!!Darkstar1st (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was also published by a reliable source.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

true, yet has nothing to do with wp:aboutself which allows using a source as a source on themselves, AS LONG AS THE ARTICLE IS NOT BASED ON SUCH PRIMARILY. the vast majority of sources are the source itself, if other sources exist, plz improve the article, if not it should go. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABOUTSELF is not a deletion reason: it is about sources. If the article is based primarily on self-published sources, then either add or delete sufficient material to restore the balance. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unfamiliar with the subject or the background of the nom/participants. I note however that primary sources are more or less irrelevant for notability purposes. It looks like he may be notable, but it would help to see some good secondary sources. In the article there look to be a couple academic papers talking about his work, but it's indeed predominantly primary (which means the article will need to be seriously edited assuming it's kept). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darkstar; subject has just not become that notable of a figure, even within the niche context of anarchist writers. E.g., compare to, say, Adam Kokesh. Pax 05:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the original deletion discussion in 2009, there were 3 articles that meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources of Carson's writings:

http://mises.org/library/kevin-carson-dr-jekyll-and-mr-hyde
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1769
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn108.htm (Google cache)

It doesn't seem to have unduly attracted self-promotion, spam or speculation, which I consider to be the main purpose of the general notability guidelines.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

general notability is not the issue , rather wp:aboutself which allows sources as sources on themselves, as long as they are not the majority. around 20 of the 22 sources are Kevin on Kevin, the others are less than flattering, one even appears to question his knowledge on the topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is an issue I raised. It is my reason for concluding we should keep the article.
You have mentioned WP:ABOUTSELF several times. I see how you can use that part of the Verifiability policy to say that the article is unbalanced or even biased. It would make the discussion go more easily if you could explain why you see it as a reason for the article to be deleted.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the correction, i meant to say WP:PROMOTION

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political... the state has also transferred wealth to the wealthy...He believes that Tucker overlooked this issue...Carson has also been highly critical of intellectual property...The primary focus of his most recent work...Carson defines capitalism in historical terms...He does not define capitalism in the idealized sense...when he talks about "capitalism" he is referring to what he calls actually existing capitalism...Carson says he is deliberately choosing to resurrect...He claims that the term capitalism, as it was originally used... Carson holds that Capitalism, arising as a new class... Carson argues that in a truly laissez-faire...Carson argues the centralization of wealth... i made it about a 1/3 of the way thru. a big collection of what Kevin thinks by Kevin. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable for articles about political writers to include what the writer thinks, by the writer. For example, see Cory_Doctorow#Opinions_on_intellectual_property. But I agree with you and Finx (fi) that there is bias in favor of Carson's views in this article (aka advocacy). I merely disagree about the remedy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

advocacy is certainly enough to delete an article and this article has baggage, wikipedias largest sock drawer [38] this article was created by multiple banned editors sharing multiple accounts all n a narrow band of political articles. the site where there posts are made is definitely an advocacy group, [39] The Center For a Stateless Society, a Left Market Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center Darkstar1st (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are sufficient reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage that are not written by the source to pass WP:GNG. As for the issues with the article, please see WP:NOTCLEANUP. While one can argue WP:TNT, I think it's far easier to fix any issues that may have arisen in the article, as it stands, thus preserving any valid content in at least the article's history, and work to make a better article, not just delete it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage of him not by him is less than flattering and notable to a tiny minority, from the two sources not KC: familiarity with this list of libertarian authors seems to have been wasted on Carson. source 13 Block, Walter. Kevin Carson as Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. ...I take issue with Carson’s claim that the principle of self-ownership alone is insufficient to decide among these rival theories of landed property. source 14 Long, Roderick. Land-locked: A Critique of Carson on Property Rights. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:16, 6 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 05:05, 8 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) 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is clear that the current version of the article relies far too heavily on self-published sources, but that fact is not by itself a compelling argument for deletion. The question here is the notability of the topic, and I believe that the coverage in the American Conservative and the Journal of Libertarian Studies establishes notability. The fact that some of the coverage is "less than flattering" is irrelevant. People who are widely criticized can certainly be notable. And with nearly 4.8 million articles on this encyclopedia, it should be clear that millions of notable topics are of interest only to a "tiny minority". Notability does not mean that the topic is of interest to the majority, or even a minority of a magnitude that the nominator judges as more than "tiny". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all of the keeps agree the article is poorly written, 20 of 22 sources are blog posts by Kevin on Kevins views, all posts appear in a Left-market anarchist blog that ...seeks to enlarge public understanding and transform public perceptions of anarchism, while reshaping academic and movement debate, through the production and distribution of market anarchist media content... per wp:tnt: Sometimes, the damage is fixable, but the effort in doing so dwarfs the effort involved in merely starting over. Can anyone really say fixing this article would be easier than compiling the scant few sources not written by Kevin and creating the stub it would be? This article is advocacy of a political theory created by sockpuppets all working on related topics. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the sockpuppet investigation. I thought the blocks were related to shared accounts, but perhaps I misunderstood. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

excellent point, not sock puppet, a group. Why would a group of people use one account? Why are all of the edits about a narrow band of ideology? How much of the article is objective?

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Berry Sandefur[edit]

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

Was mayor for 2 years of Minden, Louisiana, population <15k. Only sources presented are obitauary/cemetery records and a "list of mayors." No evidence whatsoever of significant reliable source coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Off-line sources only. Terms were then two years. Left office 93 years ago. Placeholder article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of what is a pretty small town today and must have been much smaller when he was around. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mayoralty of a town of this size is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass — and while Wikipedia does not deprecate offline sourcing, we still have to actually cite those sources. We cannot keep an article on the basis of a claim that offline sources exist, if those offline sources have not actually been cited for verification. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 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 no consensus. Nakon 01:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tralins[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article contains copyright violations. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that pass our standards for reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, John Pack Lambert. Can you help me understand this? When you: write: No sources that pass our standards for reliable sources, Do you mean, no such sources exist? Or, simply that the page shows no such sources? E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's [40] a claim to being notableE.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obit in Tampa Bay Times established notability. I don't know how big a deal TV show Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction is/was, but it is based on Tralin's work. There is a claim that some of his work, particularly his early lesbian sex novels, have become cult items. There is the fact that he ghost-wrote a memoir that became notorious, got banned by the Attorney General of Florida, and caused him to have to fight - and win - a slander suit against King Farouk of Egypt (the book was the memoir of a Madam whose bordello Farouk patronized). Plus - 251 published books. Pulp fiction and pulp occult, but 251 of them. This guy belongs on Wikipedia because people are quite likely to want to know who he was.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable per obituary. -Arb. (talk) 23:20, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 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 01:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Collapse (EP)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS, notability not established for almost 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it has charted or has been reviewed. Mattg82 (talk) 21:01, 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 redirect to System Divide. Notability not established by sources in article. Nakon 01:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Conscious Sedation[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS, notability not established for almost 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found some sources for the album. Here's a review from Pop Matters and some pre-release information from Alt Sounds and Blabbermouth. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:03, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to System Divide. I don't feel that the coverage justifies a standalone article, but there may be some content that can be merged to the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 22 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 - withdrawn by contributor. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melvyn Rubenfire[edit]

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

Seems like a finely accomplished physician, but no 3rd party confirmation that he's particularly notable. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - per new information provided in discussion below. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep His citations at Google Scholar [41] may be enough to qualify under WP:PROF. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full professor at University of Michigan. Such people are almost always notable. Based on the information in Google Scholar, clearly an authority in his field, and therefore notable by WP:PROF. .His most cited paper has 571 references, 2nd most cited 450, then 248, 230, 210, 205 189..... h=60. Even in the medical sciences, where citation numbers are on the high side, this is an exceptional record, and meetsWP:PROF. As one would expect, U Michigan, one of the highest ranking public universities in the world, is very good at judging whether people are notable before appointing them to full professor. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An h-index of 60 is enough to establish notability under WP:NACADEMICS #1. 63.92.232.57 (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough highly-cited publications for WP:PROF#C1 (I only get an h-index of 45, not 60, through Google scholar, but whatever). But the bigger problem is that we need enough sources that are independent of the subject, reliably published, and in-depth, to provide the material to write an article about the subject. There's a little more about him and his works e.g. at [42] and [43] but I couldn't find much else. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per User:DGG, User:MelanieN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should settle the question of whether he is notable: the University is fundraising to establish a named professorship in his name - "the highest honor the University of Michigan can bestow upon a faculty member." I added it to the article along with some additional biographical information. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 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, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SBFreaks[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG for me, and information isn't enoughly covered by reliable sources for verification. Also, first AfD of the day! ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 01:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be notable even locally. Google search finds this article, then social media. Google News search finds only passing mentions, e.g. saying that they will take part in an event. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A10 and WP:CSD#G3 hoax - duplicate of Akshat Singh with names changed JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yatinder Singh Dhankhar[edit]

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

This article was already deleted because of its duplication of this article Akshat Singh which is repeated here. Here is also a link to the deletion log https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Yatinder+Singh+Dhankhar&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= Rent A Troop (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake I added the wrong deletion tag. I was trying to add a tag referring to its recreation --Rent A Troop (talk) 05:38, 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. WP:SNOW keep - some of the delete/redirect votes didn't consider notability under WP:PROF and article now doesn't solely focus on the incident. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Beck-Sickinger[edit]

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

CSD A7 twice removed by creator so in the light of the sources rather thna restore the CSD for a third time, the community should decide. A pleathora of reliable sources all reporting the same incident (WP:1E), interest in which will probably soon blow over if it has not already (WP:NOTNEWS). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leipzig University internship controversy. This story had spread over at least 5 pages, the actual specific WP page, the Beck-Sickinger BLP, Vigilante (which I have reverted), Germany–India relations and at Leipzig University. (Where about 30 of the 45 references on the page are now about this issue wp:UNDUE!) It seems the women is not notable, except for this event. The creator of this BLP, ProdigiousKing32480910284 (talk · contribs) only edits on WP have been on this issue at all three related pages. The addition to Vigilante was also theirs. See here - 220 of ^Borg 07:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E, alternativley redirect to Leipzig University internship controversy. Amortias (T)(C) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Amortias said. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First choice delete, second choice keep and rewrite. With an H-index of 37 and a reasonably fleshed-out article at de:Annette_Beck-Sickinger, she has a case for notability independent of the controversy. Redirecting her name to this flash-in-the-pan media fuss about a single bad decision seems inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some actual information about the subject's career, for the record, and removed the excess material already more-than-amply discussed in the controversy article. I didn't notice them before, but the categories the article was previously placed in are a clear BLP violation. First choice is still delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stumbled upon this in the AFD list; a controversy I had not heard of before, but ~~User:Opabinia regalis did a good job of editing~~ (the article has now been edited into) into pretty good shape. The controversy shold not take over the article, but it was widely-covered, and she played an active role, this is not a case of an innocent bystander getting dragged into a media/political thing. It certainly contributes to notability. Furthermore, it is pretty unusual for a professor at a major university, with significant prizes to her credit to be deleted. Especially a bench scientist with good citation numbers. so many AFDs fall into a grey area, but this widely-published research scientist whose job-related action created a controversy seems like an obvious KEEP to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop trying to downplay her racism. People would not try to rewrite an article on George Wallace to primarily focus on his early career when he was known for championing the poor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To call Beck-Sickinger's racism "one event" is to ignore articles like this [44] that show she has used her racist attitudes at other times to justify the exclusion of Indian students.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(wow, I had no idea)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two significant awards and a full professorship at a major university is enough. Redless of her role in a non-scientific controversy, she;s notable. Content of the article here is a separate question. I;'m a little puzzled that Opabinia regalis, on basically the same arguments as my own, comes to an opposite conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the redirect suggestions that preceded me more strongly than I feel about keeping or deleting. I agree that she's eligible for an article by WP:PROF standards, but this is an otherwise low-profile BLP that was created as a borderline attack page, continues to attract disparaging commentary, and links to an extremely long article on the controversy that is littered with dubious sources and MRA-tinged WP:SYNTH. I suppose keeping the article at least presents those searching for her name with some context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF easily, with a h-index of over 40. Agreed that some WP:BLP issues need to be looked at. -- 120.17.55.37 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable as a member of the Leopoldina (WP:PROF #3). Article now is mainly about her, not the incident covered by an additional article, so I see no reason for deletion. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #C1 (heavily cited pubs) and #C3 (Leopoldina). The controversy now occupies a balanced proportion of the article rather than overwhelming it as it did before, so there is much less of an issue of BIO1E and NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to Opabinia regalis for the work to improve the article. Subject meets notability guidelines. The article still needs improvement but deserves a place in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 17:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I recommend to withdraw the nomination in the light of the article's development? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As things stand, the individual gained global notoriety for the incident and less for her scientific contributions. So this must be kept in mind when article WEIGHT is analysed. The article needs to be monitored so that the page does not become a 'hate-page'. 16:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep this article about a full professor of some distinction. If there is too much weight to the controversy, that is grounds for trimming it, and not deleting an article about a scholar. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 21 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Denholm[edit]

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

Re nominating as last AfD has no participants. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When he won a prize for his first novel, it was covered in the Sydney Morning Herald. The novel was also then published in Britain and in the U.S. These were under a pen name. The book of hisotry under his own name garnered praise. And Australian literature professors consider him notable.[45]. He clearly passes WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article and linked it up a bit. Some impressive things have been written about his work [46].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unambiguous notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 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. There is nothing to merge - info about criminalization of homosexuality is already in the articles, and everything else does not belong there; redirects would be implausible.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Lugansk[edit]

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

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

This article is an utter nonsense. First of all, it posits "Lugansk" as a "country", when no such country exists. Instead, it appears to be trying to talk about the Lugansk People's Republic. The content of this article, however, is largely not about the Luhansk region or the Lugansk People's Republic, but about Ukrainian, Soviet, and Russian history. This article is a complete nonsense coatrack, and needs to be deleted. The one sentence about the "Lugansk People's Republic" can and is dealt with in the Lugansk People's Republic article. The same rationale applies exactly to LGBT rights in Donetsk. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolute and utter WP:OR. Even if we were to overlook the fact that neither the Lugansk People's Republic or Donetsk People's Republic are even recognised states/countries, where is the rest of the content coming from? Given that a large number of editors are unable to even work out what the flag of the Novorossiya confederation is using any RS (including BIASED sources), where are the RS for these articles? Completely and patently propagandist nonsense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A general screening of the sources (including the BBC News article listing all the LGBT legal status) reveals that none of Lugansk or Donetsk are even mentioned in-text. WP:OR is smelling strong here. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:35, 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, Esquivalience ^t 04:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not sure why this is even relisted. Definite original research. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OR or poor content isn't a valid deletion criterion (except for original theories and conclusions), since it can be fixed through general editing (see WP:BEFORE § c1). (This isn't a keep vote) Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that being "made up" and the equivalent of a hoax article is certainly a valid deletion criteria. Nothing can be "fixed", because the premise is flawed and based in OR. Please see the very guideline you mentioned "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)". RGloucester — ☎ 02:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the irrelevant countries can be removed, and the "country" part can be fixed. While the self-proclaimed republic is not widely recognized as a country, it's not a hoax, nor is the LGBT rights (or lack thereof) one. It still may not be notable, though. Esquivalience ^t 02:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recognised as a "country" by anyone, including the Russian government. The "hoax" is the narrative that weaves together pieces of histories that have nothing to do with "Lugansk", an entity that no one recognises, and puts them together so as to form a coherent history of "LGBT rights in Lugansk" that does not exist in reliable sources.

This reliable source states that LGBT rights (or the lack thereof) exists: [47], and this Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (a Ukranian human right organization founded in 1992) also says the same thing here. Even if it isn't recognized as a country, it's a due mention in the main article for the self-proclaimed country. Esquivalience ^t 03:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but like I said, that's already been covered in the existing article for ages (in the case of the DPR article), making this a fork laden with OR. The main purpose of this fork is to weave a narrative that does not appear in RS, i.e. OR. RGloucester — ☎ 04:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) LGBT rights in Lugansk People's Republic with Lugansk People's Republic and same for the other article, but for a different reason as per my above statement: Fails WP:GNG: little mention or coverage in reliable sources. However, a merge would be appropriate. I don't see any WP:OR in the sections. Esquivalience ^t 02:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge LGBT rights in Lugansk with Luhansk People's Republic it really doesn't make any sense to have a separate article for this. Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 23:43, 20 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) –Davey2010^Talk 04:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smoke Burger[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about this company as per WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH is marginal given that there are two articles about the company in major papers, but both discuss the fact that a small fast food chain is expanding internationally, nothing else. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the Toronto Star and The WallStreet Journal aren't major papers? Those are from the first page on Google News. AcidSnow (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The company isn't some local group but rather an internatonal company that stretch from Toronto to Bahrain. AcidSnow (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read the AfD reasoning, I acknowledge coverage in major papers - but it doesn't say much. What I contest is that there is anything about a small burger chain that meets the criteria in WP:ORGSIG, please review that. Walkabout14 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do I need? According to a poll done by Toronto.com, Big Smoke Burger was amongst the top 10 best burger spots.[48] AcidSnow (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, local reader polls don't really confer international notability as such. In principle, I agree with you that this chain does clear the bar, but making Top 10 in a local newspaper's "best local things" poll doesn't really have anything to do with why. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasn't really sure what he was looking for. AcidSnow (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I may wish sometimes that Wikipedia had specific minimum quality standards that had to be met before an article could be started at all (e.g. a minimum number of substantive words, and at least four or five sources, present in the article right off the top), we don't. The actual rule is that if a WP:GNG-satisfying level of sourcing can be shown to exist, then an article gets kept, and merely flagged for cleanup. NorthAmerica1000 has shown numerous other sources that satisfy GNG, and still other sourcing does and will exist — I've already directly added another one that wasn't even in NA's list. Keep and flag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now appears to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:43, 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 speedy keep. per sk1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Blackery[edit]

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

With services existing to increase subscriber and view counts, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Almost all sources are self-published. Padenton (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator― Padenton |☎ 03:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - tremendous failure of WP:BEFORE. [56] is a major piece about her, and she verifiably has charted singles, thus very clearly meeting WP:NMUSIC's second criteria. There's also some coverage by RockSound, although I don't know how reliable they are. There is also [57], [58] as well. Not sure where the "With services existing to increase subscriber and view counts" comes in to play, because Blackery clearly meets GNG and NMUSIC. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Luke and per these sources [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67].... Yeah BEFORE wasn't even followed at all, Clearly meets GNG and meets NMUSIC, There are plenty of sources on Google News and probably alot more on other news sites as well. –Davey2010^Talk 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep does appear to be appropriate now. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:46, 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 delete. Nakon 01:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civitatis International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company appears to have very little notability. There is a single source provided only, and the scope of the article is almost entirely about a single incident, which isn't even a very notable incident. In my opinion, this article contributes very little to the encyclopaedic value of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As before, despite the government link and this one event this company does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep As for the previous AfD, they've been covered by both the Grauniad and HuffPost in relation to the intern issue. Also they seem to be taken seriously by the UK government, in that they're invited to provide written submissions to select committees: [68] Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This argument was given before and I still don't understand how being able to submit anything to a government makes a company notable for Wikipedia. Can you please elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion? - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the UK government has asked for either my advice, nor yours. They have however seen fit to ask Civitatis for theirs. That suggests that the UK government (something of an authority on whether particular think tanks are seen as significant) consider them as notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley it is my understanding that in the UK, anyone in the public can submit "evidence" (use of that term is not how we use it in the US) - at certain points in the life of a bill -- see [69] The fact that CIvitas submitted evidence doesn't mean that the committee (not the whole parliament) asked for it. The committee may or may not decide to publish "evidence". It is true that the committee did decide to publish the evidence from Civitas (I have no idea how indiscriminate they are in practice - if they publish everything, everything with a shred of credibiliy, or are really selective). As near as I can see this UK process is kind of parallel to the "comment period" in the US Rulemaking process - where there is a clear period of public commentary built in. Anyway, to me that Civitas submission is pretty much like a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece by Civitas. Doesn't show notability to me. And there are no third party sources showing that their "evidence" mattered to anybody.... (or that Civitas matters to anybody, other than how they treat their interns) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no significant coverage in third party sources. even the incident that brought the first blip of news has dropped from the press coverage as being not worthy of any follow up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) Not notable, fails WP:ORG. I was in the process of nominating it myself when Joseph beat me to it. There has been edit warring between two versions of the article: an extended puffery piece full of unreferenced spam, and the current version which consists almost entirely of a negative news story about the organization. That one incident appears to be the only subject on which the organization gained any Reliable Source coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does adding puffery become a reason to delete? Yes, that section was unsourced and overblown. However that's what we're here to fix by editing and by adding sources, not by deleting articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes an issue in cases like this-cases when you remove the puffery that there is nothing left. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find Reliable Sources to support the extended version, please add them and I might change my !vote. In my own search, I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RedPen - no it doesn't. WP:Notability is objective (or as near as we can get) and deliberately independent of WP coverage. Topics are notable or not whether they have WP articles about them. Your regular tactic (and you know full well that I despise your editing style) is to prune an article that you have a grievance with down until it no longer demonstrates notability and then hope to trap other editors in believing the fallacy that you have now somehow removed notability from a topic.

It would be optimistic to hope that a better editor might have time and inclination to study what's out there about Civitatis and see if they really do have a WP:Notable footprint for which we can find sources. The sad part is that your lynch mob attitude, attacking the article expanders as socks before you ever look at the topic they're working on, easily gains so many followers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed I do "prune" from articles content that does not meet the policies and guidelines of of WP:V / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and quite frequently what one is left with is a subject that obviously does not meet WP:GNG. It is then incumbent upon those who think the subject meets the Wikipedia criteria to actually supply appropriate sources that validate a WP:GNG threshold. I will stand by those "tactics" as methodology that clearly helps improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Doesn't get past WP:ORG and no evidence of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:not notable based on sources provided, and I looked for more and found none. Fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even sure why we have an article on this company; completely fails WP:CORP and is wholly negative. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One trick pony. Google News only has a few articles related to the charging-interns-for-job-references "scandal". There is no real coverage of what the company is or what it does that makes it notable. It's quite possible that the same whistleblowers who had enough of a beef with the organization to report them to the press are attempting to further disrepute the organization. (And yes, I just used disrepute as a verb for fun.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Park Sung-yong[edit]

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

Park Sung-yong is a member of the boy band Touch, which doesn't have an article. His only individual activity is a supporting role in a television series. The article has no secondary reliable sources to show notability. I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG. Random86 (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating fellow Touch member Kim Sun-woong for the same reasons. (He's had a lead role in a short drama and appeared in a music video.)

Random86 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both-both seem unotable from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 17:05, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those articles need independent, reliable, substantial sources, which are missing at present. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I absolutely hate deleting pages like this, because I'm usually convinced that there must be great coverage floating around in Korean (and there is no reason whatsoever to prioritize English vs. non-English sources.) Can't competently search myself for the sources, though, so maybe a Korean-speaker could help out before the final consensus. Earflaps (talk) 10:47, 14 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 // 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Shinyang-i could do a quick search for sources? Keep in mind that even if Park and Kim's band (Touch) is notable, they have to have independent notability to have their own articles (WP:BAND). Since they apparently haven't done much, I doubt this is the case. Random86 (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's got only 16 hits on Naver.[70] That's really small beer for a Korean celeb. He is not on Hancinema,[71] so we can safely dismiss his acting career as non-notable. The initializer (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I really couldn't find anything to speak of in Korean media. If the non-news hits from Naver are removed (go to The initializer's link above and then click on "뉴스"), there are only two hits remaining (the other stuff were blog posts, etc). One guy had one supporting role in one drama and the other had a lead role in a very short "teen drama" on Tooniverse. Acting notability requirements are a bit higher than this. And neither guy meets music notability requirements, definitely. Both articles are sourced only to the artists' own homepage. I think these Wikipedia articles assume their careers are on an upward trajectory but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so it's WP:TOO SOON. :\ Shinyang-i (talk) 03:45, 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 redirect to EP Daily. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EP Daily hosts[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLPs of two television hosts. Lucas' only source is a single tweet on his own Twitter feed announcing the birth of his daughter — an unreliable source supporting a fact that has nothing to do with whether he's notable enough for an article or not — while Jones features no sources at all save a couple of primary source external links. Both have been tagged as needing reference improvement since 2011, with no improvement having been provided over the four years since. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be beefed up properly, but a person is not eligible to keep a permanently unsourced article on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How much time would you give me to beef up properly. I'm trying to do my best here and learn but all of my work is being deleted before I have the chance to work on it. I'm trying my best here to update and make sure these pages are worth keeping. Please don't delete them, help me with this instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRee333 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfDs are usually open for at least 7 days. reddogsix (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's needed to make a person eligible for a Wikipedia article is reliable source (i.e. real media) coverage about them: newspaper or magazine articles in which they're the subject, books which write about them in a significant way (they don't have to be the core subject of the book, but they do have to be more than just passingly namechecked), and on and so forth. You can't rely on their own blog, their own social media profiles, press releases or their promotional biographies on the website of the show they appear on, as those are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES — it's okay to use them for additional confirmation of facts after you've added enough reliable sourcing to cover off the basic notability issue, but they can't carry the notability in and of themselves. You have a week under this process, but Wikipedia does not extend infinite patience to articles that aren't meeting our standards — they've had four years already, and they can't have four more. Bearcat (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if I edit this properly within the next week it'll be possible to avoid deletion.

Take a look at the Scott C Jones page. I have references used, let me know if I need more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRee333 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still at zero. #2 is the website of the program itself, thus a primary source that cannot count toward Jones' notability at all, and #1 merely namechecks his existence in the process of being primarily about something else that isn't him. (Did you miss, or actively ignore, the part where I said he has to be the subject of the newspaper article?) Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gaff (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. the Victor Lucas bio has been up for 9 years and no-one has found any evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my best here. I'm sorry if it's offending you that I'm new to this and not the most techsavy. I'll just work at it more. MrRee333 (talk) 05:55, 1 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 // 00:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EP Daily as worthwhile search terms. On the video game host front, the article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Neither individual (nor "EP Daily", for that matter) had any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 16:06, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:czar. --Michig (talk) 09:19, 22 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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Knight-Pacheco[edit]

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

Non-notable television cook. Orange Mike | Talk 01:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks notability. There's nothing in this article that isn't already in The Restaurant (UK series 2), and nothing about this contestant that differentiates him from the others or merits a standalone article. Bazj (talk) 15:16, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bazj, fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 11:16, 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 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Sahajanadha[edit]

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

Not sure about accuracy in the article at all. Can't find any info either, closest name I could find is this guy: Swami Sahajananda (Chidambaram MLA) Wgolf (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add I can't even find a L.M.Bagavedhar. Wgolf (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per Wgolf, I couldn't find any information at all about any of the terms or people in the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 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 01:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetic Communications[edit]

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

The "global attention" consists of minor notices. " DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Confusingly enough there are companies with the same name in Birmingham UK (PR firm) and India (circuit boards). From this, it seems that this company has mainly local clients, which is fine but only local coverage. Their new office got a lot of attention, but I would rather credit that to the architect. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 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 01:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted and the Angel[edit]

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

Non-notable television program which aired only in one market; fails WP:TVSHOW. I should also mention I can't find any evidence of an Emmy nomination on IMDb, emmys.com or chicagoemmyonline.org, but maybe it's in a specialized category. Blackguard 07:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN local TV show. Article created by COI. reddogsix (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Ted Weber article survives AfD, this article's content can be used to improve that one. I could find only one online RS mention of this show, a passing reference in a book about kids' TV shows in Chicago. [72] There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this show for it to warrant its own article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/situational selective merge: At the rate this is going it is quite possible that the article on Ted Weber will be deleted due to lack of notability issues but if it does survive then I'd suggest a selective merge as said above, so long as we can find some adequate sources. --The one that forgot (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, and judging by a Google search, completely unsourceable. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 22 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 01:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Information Technology, University of Dhaka[edit]

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

The article looks like a student guide and does not demonstrate notability. The degrees offered are by the University of Dhaka, I oppose redirect as there are several "institute of information technology" in the world, eg in Shenzen, Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full Cleanup needed. The article appears to have been created by a staff member someone who is very knowledgeable of the subject. The article is similar to a self published website without a single source. However Here is vast amount of sources on University of Dhaka [73], which appears to be the same as Institute of Information Technology, University of Dhaka. (Unless I am wrong). Caseeart (talk) 05:10, 8 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 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 // 01:33, 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 redirect to AirWatch. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering WiFi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No individual notability as a company. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AirWatch per prev discussion. –Davey2010^Talk 05:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 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. No arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beavercreek Band[edit]

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

Reason Liffer (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Page devoted to a high school band. While there are some links to local news articles, substantial information appears to be original research (see WP:OR) and the entire page appears to violate WP:NOTABLE. While the music program is undoubtedly important to its members, there is no significant coverage in neutral news media. The band also already has an entire section on the school's wiki page, which is more than any other group, club, or team has.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 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 Userfy. Consensus that this is too early, will move to creator's userspace (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Brasil Tennis Cup[edit]

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

It may be earlier to create, so I AfDed. 333 -blue 10:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to creators userspace - It is a bit early for my liking but it seems a fair bit of effort has gone in to this so don't really wanna see it go to waste. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge Article can be (re)created when the entry list is out. Makes no sense to have an ampty article. Kante4 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remind: "empty", not "ampty".--333 -blue 23:08, 20 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 Userfy. Consensus that this is too early, will move to creator's userspace (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Baku Cup[edit]

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

It may be earlier to create, so I AfDed. 333 -blue 10:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to creators userspace - It is a bit early for my liking but it seems a fair bit of effort has gone in to this so don't really wanna see it go to waste. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge Article can be (re)created when the entry list is out. Makes no sense to have an ampty article. Kante4 (talk) 20:44, 20 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 Userfy. Consensus that this is too early, will move to creator's userspace per suggestion.(non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 İstanbul Cup[edit]

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

It may be earlier to create, so I AfDed. 333 -blue 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to creators userspace - It is a bit early for my liking but it seems a fair bit of effort has gone in to this so don't really wanna see it go to waste. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge Article can be (re)created when the entry list is out. Makes no sense to have an ampty article. Kante4 (talk) 20:45, 20 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 Userfy. Consensus that this is too early, will move to creator's userspace per suggestion. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gastein Ladies[edit]

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

It may be earlier to create, so I AfDed. 333 -blue 10:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to creators userspace - It is a bit early for my liking but it seems a fair bit of effort has gone in to this so don't really wanna see it go to waste. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 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 redirect to Nancy Krulik. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown, Class Clown[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author is an immensely prolific writer of kids' books, and reviews of her works, including some of the books in this series, can be found, for example [74] and [75] but I am inclined to think we would be better off with one better-sourced article about the author than with multiple articles that do little more than list the books in each series. So I lean toward redirecting this to Nancy Krulik. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 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. No arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victim Cache[edit]

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

Does not satisfy notability requirements per WP:BAND, highly promotional content. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 12:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 14:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 14:05, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar Rashkovsky[edit]

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

A brilliant young violin player who studied at a number of prestigious music academies and won prizes internal to those academies. Other than that, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 14:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 14:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. too early in his career. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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. No arguments have been made for this article's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Community Media Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. Re nominating as no participants in last AfD LibStar (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 7 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 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 01:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Pratap Chattopadhyaya[edit]

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

Self published and promotional tone Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has nom done WP:BEFORE in Bengali?. (Finding sources in English is frequently bloody impossible, especially when it's uncertain if the subject's very long name is even spelled correctly; i.e., does is really end in an 'a'? Google, for one, thinks it might not. Throwing in a middle-name and/or an honorific is also sure to limit the number of "easy" News/Scholar/etc. automatic matches one will encounter.) Pax 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with a variation of search names, I'm finding nothing at all to support notability. Subject appears to be an obscure WP:FRINGE historian, and the article reports his ideas (unsourced) as if they are established facts. Subject certainly doesn't satisfy WP:N and WP:V fo English Wikipedia. Bengali Wikipedia does not have an article on him either. -- 120.17.24.183 (talk) 11:56, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 7 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 // 00:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did not found anything substantial about the subject, nor in English nor in Bengali. Looks just one of the countless vanity pages about Indian non-notable personalities. Cavarrone 06:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Educationtemple (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than an article about an academic, I'm actually not seeing any assertion to notability and while I cannot do a search in Bengali, I wasn't able to find anything substantive. I think a reasonable effort at WP:BEFORE has been done, so the WP:BURDEN remains with the article contributors to provide WP:RS and WP:V to the point where it meets WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 17:56, 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 for all the reasons listed below and under the snowball clause. —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament - Media timeout[edit]

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

This article is merely about the game times at which the media timeouts took place, which is information not normally reported in the games' box scores, and therefore nearly impossible to be correctly sourced per WP:CITE. Further, in insignificance of these details with regard to the overall interest of the tournament is also an aggravating factor to this article's existence. Ben^Yes? 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You actually could verify these details by reading the complete play-by-plays, though I'm not sure why anyone would bother. This information is way too trivial for a Wikipedia article. The exact time of a TV timeout has no bearing on the outcome of a game. Zagalejo^^^ 04:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Benhen1997 and Zagalejo: I added 2015 ACC Men's Basketball Tournament - Media timeout and 2015 Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament - Media timeout to the nomination because they are the same genre, but for different college basketball conferences. Feel free to remove if this is problematic as you have already nominated/!voted.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:LISTN with no sources that describe this grouping of timeout in a game. WP:NOTSTATS applied as well for obscure game stats.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete!!!! Rarely have I seen a more pointless article, with a less notable topic. Violates WP:GNG, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTSTATS. Delete with extreme prejudice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LC items 1-5, 8, and 10, WP:LISTN, and WP:STUPID. These are among the most trivial articles I have ever seen in ten years editing. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all per above arguments. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SNOW?—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 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 01:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwita Dutta[edit]

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

Unable to find notability. Sure I get tons of hits for Rwita Dutta, but the problem is that its because there is a actress with that name it looks like also (well her name is Rwita Dutta Chakraborty, but that is the only hits I seem to get when I looked up this name was for a similar named person) and I can't find anything for her alternate name of Rita Datta. Wgolf (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rita Dutta Chakraborty - assuming this is the same person. If not, then delete. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 7 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 // 00:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable figure. Most of the cited sources are article written by herself. Attending some film festival as guest or special guest does not make a person a notable figure. Educationtemple (talk) 18:18, 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 merge to Screen International Security Services. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Korein[edit]

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

An autobiographical page of a non-notable person. Also promotes their business in External Links. ldvhl (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that the page is autobiographical. It was started in 2007 by a user who has been editing since 2006, who is still editing. it would be a courtesy on your part to contact him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Long-standing article on well-known Hollywood bodyguard, has reliable sources on page, just not in-line. Google turns up other reliable sources, but also the fact that this dude doesn't want publicity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two of those links actually work and I don't see any other reliable sources when I search Google. Most of what I see is other self-promotional postings. ldvhl (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also this [76] in The Forward. On the page and functioning is Fox News [77]. Those articles abe about Korein, tho they are not profiles of him. I don't know quite why newspapers like the NYTimes mention this bodyquard by name [78] He has a listing at imdb [79], which Israelis apparently think is a cool thing [80] He even gets a couple of hits on google books [81].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Screen International Security Services.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems legit. Is SISS itself notable enough to be on Wikipedia though? ldvhl (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think so. There's this stuff from a quick search on google news [82] Adding that to the sources about Korein I think it passes.E.M.Gregory (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, sounds good enough to me. I don't know what happens after this point? ldvhl (talk) 19:08, 12 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 // 00:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Merge/Redirect to his company. --MelanieN (talk) 20:19, 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 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heist (Irish TV series)[edit]

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 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 // 00:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As stated in the nom, it just doesn't meet notability criteria. There's no evidence from searching further that there are sources that could be added to make the article meet standards.

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 01:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper's Ghost (Buckethead album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. There's a thousand of these, no doubt created by admirers of the musician, and most of them fail WP:NALBUM, since they have little more than a tracklist and, in this case, a review from a blog. My redirect was reverted with the motto "it's useful" which is not in agreement with any of our policies. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 7 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 // 00:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this album has charted or reviewed by multiple professional outlets as required by the music recordings policy. Mattg82 (talk) 21:15, 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 01:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Than Cho[edit]

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

No evidence for notability, and promotional as well "wide rvision for the devlelopment of the medical curriculum" (etc.) DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 19:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete an obituary of a good, but nonnotable doctor. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found another source, an obit at the Malaysian Orthopedic Journal here, but the WP entry shows close paraphrasing to this source in places, so that would need to be addressed if the article were kept. EricEnfermero (Talk) 22:06, 14 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 // 00:13, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-brick[edit]

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

This article looks spammy. Best check it out. There was a request to move it to Ecobrick (which now redirects to a disambig page), with this reason: "I am one of the founders of an alliance of folks around the world who are Ecobricking. We're non-profit, 100% volunteer and passionate about getting this solution out to the world. We want to swap the contents of the article 'Eco-Bricks' with that of 'Ecobrick'. When Ecobricking we weren't confident enough to give the process a full, un-hyphenated name. Ecobricking is now happening all around the world and the term is being used as a single word now in many languages. The hyphen is no longer necessary. We're thus adopting "ecobricks" as the go-to term for the technique. You will see in media references on the page that everyone is now calling it "Ecobricks". We want to update the wiki article to reflect this. We need help to make the move. Thanks! – 182.253.150.176 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Reliably sourced. "spammy" is to clean the article not to delete. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic. WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV are not valid reasons to delete. Please help improve the article. ~KvnG 14:04, 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 // 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most of the shite's been deleted so no reason to delete, I'll admit it still needs work doing tho. –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with media attention like [83][84]. The other two entries seems significantly less notable than this and not mentioned in the linked article, so IMO maybe we can give all forms of Ecobrick (with or without hyphen, capital or small B) redirects. There are of course other things to clean up in the article (like significantly rewrite section Making an Ecoblock to rid of WP:NOTHOWTO), but as far as AfD goes this is it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because the "spam" in the article can be removed through normal editing, "spammy" is not a valid deletion rationale (see WP:BEFORE § c1). The subject meets WP:GNG (significant coverage), so it is notable. Esquivalience ^t 14:46, 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.