Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Your Language[edit]

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

Sourced only to the network. That link doesn't even work. No indication that it's even shown anymore or that it's notable. Greykit (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've update to a working url. It appears to be a 2009 show but no more details found. ww2censor (talk) 10:49, 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 --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Wallace (actor)[edit]

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

This actor had several roles like "Medic #1" or "Cop #2" along with a few parts where he plays a named character and apparently gets some screen time, but his roles in film and TV may not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER :"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Edison (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the roles do not appear to meet WP:ENT, and I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to show that subject might meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He had a few minor roles that apparently went without any commentary in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR with only minor roles. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:37, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loudoun Hounds[edit]

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

There is no website. There has not now nor has there ever been a game played or a team signed to play games. George Bounacos (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved the AfD from Talk:Loudoun Hounds to the actual article and should have fixed everything else. ansh 666 20:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (for now) - The lead accurately states, "The Loudoun Hounds are a planned minor league baseball team". The efforts are not over yet, though they have degenerated into lawsuits. When this reaches a conclusion, and if it is a failure, then this information might be better summarized in the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball article -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4-Bagger Keep: Would the nom like to put forth a deletion rationale that's actually in our policies and guidelines? There's nothing in WP:V, WP:N or the GNG about the need for subjects to have websites or players signed. The subject meets the GNG going away: it's a done deal. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:GNG, even if they never play a a game. Notability is not temporary, nor does it lapse because plans change. oknazevad (talk) 00:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty the Klepto Kitty[edit]

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

Non-notable cat. As I said in the PROD, if Wikipedia had an article for every internet cat, Wikipedia would be wayyyy to big. Fails WP:GNG, sourced to YouTube, Facebook, and a local TV station. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: cute cat but, as per the nom, sources do not meet notability standards. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, the topic has received international news coverage, such as in Metro. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Source examples include:

Dusty the Klepto Kitty is a one-cat crime wave. Metro.
Cat steals from everyone in San Mateo neighborhood. San Francisco Chronicle.
Klepto kitty's owners find out how he operates. ABC News (San Francisco).
Klepto Feline Gives New Meaning to 'Cat' Burglar. ABC News (San Francisco).
"Klepto Cat" to Make Celebrity Appearance. ABC News (San Francisco).
Dusty the 'Klepto Kitty' to help Peninsula Humane Society's annual Adopt-a-thon on Saturday. San Jose Mercury News.

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per Northamerica1000. And as improved by the added reference sources. Our article itself has received recent media attention by the Huffington Post, as noted on the talk page. Fylbecatulous talk 13:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per WP:HEY, if somebody would place the sources into the article itself. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 23 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 Masters of Harmony. As notability is not inherited and there has been no evidence provided here of the subject being covered directly and in detail by reliable sources, the article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Miller (barbershop)[edit]

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

Not sure if this guy goes as notable or not. Sounds interesting, but is he notable enough for a Wikipedia page? (I put him under the DAB for Justin Miller but was not even sure what to list him as!) Wgolf (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for having this page is based on the existing precedent for Greg Lyne who also served as one of the Music Directors of the Masters of Harmony. Upon approval of this new article, we will link this new article to that article. Please let us know if there is a better way to disambiguate this entry (such as "barbershop music")Mfreedkin (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-well not sure how many barbershop quartets get a page on Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Actually, there are many articles about barbershop quartets and barbershop choruses. Please see: Vocal Majority, Ambassadors of Harmony, Thoroughbreds (chorus), Toronto Northern Lights, Masters of Harmony, Westminster Chorus, and List of Barbershop Harmony Society quartet champions for a list of every barbershop quartet champion since 1939.Mfreedkin (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Is any additional information needed to bring this discussion to closure?Mfreedkin (talk) 18:33, 17 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) 18:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All very well and good, but the guy just doesn't meet the GNG. Wikipedia is not for promotion of barbershop chorus leaders. (No objection to a redirect as per MelanieN) Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Masters of Harmony, where he is already mentioned. He actually directs two choruses, but Masters of Harmony seems to be the more notable of the two. This article's main claim to notability is that the choruses he led won gold medals in competition - but that reflects on their notability, not his. BTW there is no reason why barbershop quartets and choruses can't be notable; the same standard of GNG applies to them as to any other musical group. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in response to Mfreedkin's note about Greg Lyne: they are not comparable. Greg Lyne has had a far more notable career than Justin Miller. Miller's main claim to fame is directing these local choruses; Lyne has an international reputation, and his direction of Masters of Harmony is purely incidental to his career. --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Four Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published record label who has never had an act appear on any major chart. (CMJ is not major in any way). No significant coverage of the company failing WP:CORP and GNG. The Dissident Aggressor 13:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX in particular for content like in this revision. The record label does not appear to have done anything notable and has no independent coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. Looks a bit like a publicity/fundraising campaign for a legal fund for the label's creator Ceschi whose article is salted for repeated recreation against consensus. Ivanvector (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, while probably inappropriately spit-shined by COI editors, is more notable than the hype would suggest. Before nominating the article, the nominator removed the entire list of current/past artists, which include musicians such as Astronautalis, K-the-I???, Blue Sky Black Death, Open Mike Eagle, Busdriver, and Boy In Static. Meets WP:MUSIC's definition of "one of the more important indie labels". Chubbles (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited: Even if the company's products are notable, that doesn't mean the company is notable by itself. WP:CORP is pretty straight-forward and WP:MUSIC doesn't apply to labels. The Dissident Aggressor 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why WP:CORP would be used as a standard here; I have occasionally heard this argued before, but it makes no sense. Whether or not a record label is notable ought to be decided by experts in music, not experts in business, and since WP:MUSIC has something to say about this, it should not be ignored. Chubbles (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Four is not a music creator or creation which is what Wp:MUSIC is explicitly about. We're talking about a non-creative business like a promoter, retailer, distributor, a recording studio or an instrument manufacturer. How would anything other than WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG apply? Beyond that, what aspect of WP:MUSIC would apply? The Dissident Aggressor 00:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Labels issue culture, and are thus different from, say, an investment bank or a supermarket chain; they should no more be judged solely as corporations than bands themselves should be (and we don't use WP:CORP to determine a band's notability, even though bands are unquestionably businesses). The best and most specific criterion for determining a label's encyclopedic worth is given in WP:MUSIC, where it states a band is notable if it is on an important label - one that has been around for more than a few years and has a roster with many notable acts. Fake Four passes this test. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, a band can pass WP:MUSIC if it's on an important label. Labels package or "issue" culture. Nothing on on WP:Music addresses labels, or other ancillary organizations that "issue" or otherwise publish culture like music download sites. Nothing. You're completely mistaken that WP:MUSIC contains any definition of "important labels" - it's not there. We have other standards for related businesses. The Dissident Aggressor 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your statements above are refuted on their face by what I've already said, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Chubbles (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Chubbles, record labels are clearly mentioned in WP:MUSIC. I am not !voting yet, as I need to check the notability of the artists on the label page, to check for walled garden. If a label has signed that many notable artists as is suggested at first glance, notability is strongly suggested. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was created long before Ceschi's legal troubles. And the label has released numerous albums by notable underground acts (including Ceschi, whose article should not have been deleted, as notability is actually easily establishable with a quick google, contrary to the above comment). - Forty.4 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceschi was deleted and salted for the right reason - consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was there even an AFD discussion for the Ceschi deletion? If so could you link me to it please? The one linked to from the salted page is from 2007. He has become a good deal more notable since then, releasing his most widely reviewed album and founding Fake Four. Non-notability is not a permanent affliction. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as above, I'm still on delete on this one. The giant list of artists (all sourced to Allmusic, which would list my band if I bought a drum set) is no evidence of notability for this record label. Where has anyone written about the record label? The only source that qualifies is the ugsmag.com source; the others are dead links or improper citations such that I can't tell what they are referring to anyway, and one reliable source is not enough. There's maybe one more in this article but that makes me think that the label is only notable because of the criminal activity of its creator, and we already didn't keep an article on him. As such, this fails WP:GNG. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The label has been written about in every review of each record it has put out. Also, I agree with Chubbles and 78.26 that a label that has put out dozens of albums by notable artists is likely notable on that basis alone (I think ipso facto, but also because it will have received coverage as part of the coverage of those albums). The artists whose listings are referenced to AllMusic in the label's article mostly have their own articles with their own sources establishing their own notability. Ceschi's article (which had been stable for over 2 years) was deleted and salted without discussion (based on a prior discussion from 8 years ago) by an admin who didn't even bother to click through to The One Man Band Broke Up, which has several sources establishing its--and therefore Ceschi's--notability. - Forty.4 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The giant farm of Allmusic links now present in the article is there because the nominator insisted that they be rigorously sourced pursuant to WP:BURDEN. It was the only way I could ensure that the list remain on the page at all. Chubbles (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the point that there are no other real sources. QED. The Dissident Aggressor 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing "fake" about the sources I provided is the name of the label. You asked for WP:V, and I provided it. Chubbles (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The label is mentioned in each of the reviews as the briefest of footnotes. The reviews are not about the record label, and doing a lot of things doesn't make a subject notable. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty sweeping statement; did you check every referenced review for every Fake Four album by every artist on the label? While this may be true for most of the reviews, it's not true of all of them. Here are some reviews that contain substantial commentary on the label's aesthetic, ethos and significance:

"About a decade ago, the hip-hop underground was being challenged by an artsy rap collective called Anticon that inspired and opened doors for other experimental hip-hop artists. Orlando, FL rapper Bleubird came up during this period, building a name for himself as a rapid-fire MC with a message worth imparting and a witty way with words with which to spread it. Graduating from long-time label Endemik, Cannonball!!! is his first effort with Fake Four, the spiritual successor to Anticon." - Exclaim!

"Busdriver's ninth solo studio album is a fine fit for Fake Four, as their genre-bending hip-hop and open acceptance of rappers singing has given many experimentally-minded MCs the opportunity to flirt with the pop music world." - Exclaim!

"With each successive release, label Fake Four Inc. moves further into territory previously dominated by Anticon and Mush, as defined by their Frankenstein-like fusion of rap, indie rock, folk and electronica, mostly centred upon Saskatoon, SK producer Factor's collaborative creations. His compilation, Lawson Graham, was the label's most extreme example of this aesthetic, until the release of this collaboration with Guelph, ON singer-songwriter Gregory Pepper." - Exclaim!

"The sound of indie rap as filtered through warped children's music is a great match for Fake Four Inc, with Logic's singing on "Bet the Farm" and elsewhere sounding similar to that of label head Ceschi, while his high-speed raps on "Chip off the Old Blog" sound like an attempt to give Busdriver a run for his fast-rap money." - Exclaim!

"Hats off to Fake-Four Records and label head Ceschi Ramos for taking in fledgling artists like Sadistik or Dark Time Sunshine and giving them a real opportunity to not only succeed, but also preserve the art of hip-hop." - Sputnik Music

This is in addition to this lengthy Ugsmag interview about the label with Ceschi, and this interview with the head of sister label/distributor Circle Into Square, as well as some other commentary on the label in a series of interviews conducted with artists on the roster, such as Factor, Onry Ozzborn and Moka Only. -- Forty.4 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Label is notable for length of operation, wide distribution, and number of notable artists signed, not because of the founder. Many of the artists on the label's list are of dubious notability, but there are also numerous artists of unquestionable notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the label can inherit notability from its suppliers (the acts it distributes) instead of passing WP:GNG? The Dissident Aggressor 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're well-founded argument only addresses the first my points. I wish someone else were responding, who could more articulately demonstrate what I am trying to say. The concept is, what makes a record label notable, and why are record labels notable at all in the first place? Record labels are notable because they have influence on culture in general and a greater influence on musical culture in specific. This is demonstrated by the fact that many collectors will accumulate all examples of a label they can acquire, and the depth of coverage devoted to individual labels. There is no argument among discographers and musicologists that the personalities and operating culture of a label can and does have significant influence on artists' musical output. I am by no means arguing that every record label is notable, and I would say that probably 75% of the labels introduced here are of no encyclopedic value. I think that Fake Four is notable because of its cultural significance, and this cultural significance can be measured by the number of notable artists promoted/distributed, the length of operation, and the geographic scope of distribution. It is therefore likely that those interested in the "art" produced by this label (and I am utterly not among them) would want to know more about this organization, and the topic is therefore of inherent encyclopedic value, containing non-trivial knowledge, containing verifiable information, even is that information has to be compiled from numerous independent sources that do not provide "in-depth" coverage when taken autonomously, but where it is possible to assemble reasonable context from reliable, verifiable sources without delving into WP:OR. This line of reasoning is borrowed from the bullet-point of WP:BASIC, which is specific to biographies, but the principle is applicable here. GNG is a both the most used and probably useful guideline we have here, and I am not trying to dismiss its importance. But it is a subset of WP:N, where at the very top of the guideline it states that common sense must be applied. Therefore, I am taking to position that it is Wikipedia is improved if it has an article on Fake Four as the topic is notable (of encyclopedic value) as "one of the more important indie labels" as defined by WP:MUSIC. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but where are the sources? All we seem to have is a collection of reviews of work that the label was involved in, but none of those reviews are coverage in any sort of depth about the label - most only list the label and say nothing more about it. If the label has had a notable impact on musical culture, the way that we measure such a thing is that independent sources have written about it. About the label's influence, not just that it exists. WP:GNG is not just our most referred notability guideline, it is paramount: all of our other notability guidelines are supplemental to it. If a subject does not pass WP:GNG, we do not have an article about it, end of story. Ivanvector (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you seem to have ignored almost everything I said. Where is the policy that says "must meet GNG, end of story". If that were true, why in the world do we waste so much time on these AfD debates? If GNG were the only factor to consider in each and every case, it wouldn't be called a guideline, it would be called the General Notability Commandment. GNG is a very, very useful tool, but it is not an idol to which we must slavishly bow and worship. Absent COMPELLING rationale, GNG is the best way to establish whether or not a topic is of encyclopedic value. I am attempting here to present just that compelling rationale. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, apologies, I did not ignore what you said. What you said about music labels being culturally influential is very correct; we have an article on record labels because their influence is very strongly indicated by the volume of independent content written about them, but that doesn't mean that every record label is notable. What you said about Fake Four is quite possibly also true, these things may be indicators of a label's real-world notability, but the only standard that we use to gauge a subject's notability is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (i.e. it is notable because reliable sources have noted it). Notability is not based on feeling, it is based on sources. If there are no sources, there is no notability. You're also correct that GNG is not policy. The policy is What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We eliminate indiscriminate information by ensuring that information we include passes a basic test, which is the General Notability Guideline. GNG is general, so we have other notability guidelines which adapt the principles of GNG for specific topics, but in all cases, those supplementary notability guidelines are meant to be an indicator of whether a subject is likely to pass GNG or not. GNG is always the test, and if you do not have significant coverage in multiple independent sources, the subject fails GNG, and we don't have an article about it. You cannot wish away GNG with "compelling rationale" unless that rationale is in the form of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Ivanvector (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're in 99% agreement in principle, if not specifics. Please show me a policy that proves GNG is "always" the test, no exceptions. I have clearly demonstrated where and how "da rulz" say exceptions should be given, but Wikipedia "rules" often are in conflict with each other, hence this invigorating discussion. I agree that Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminate collection, and that is the reason it is important to demonstrate that Fake Four is "one of the more important indie labels". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going to keep on in circles around the policies and guidelines here, but I'll try again. Above, you mentioned both the WP:BASIC guideline for biographies (which refers directly to GNG) and the verifiability policy, which I assume here contain the "exceptions" you're referring to. I disagree; there are no exceptions. BASIC (which is specific to biographies, but let's ignore that) is a restatement of GNG: a subject is presumed notable if there is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. If the depth of coverage of individual sources is not significant then multiple sources independent of each other may be combined to demonstrate notability. That is not at odds with GNG at all. As for WP:V providing exceptions, I'm not sure I understand; the verifiability policy requires that all information must be able to be verified from a reliable source; there are exceptions such as WP:BLUE but this doesn't seem to have much to do with notability. For a very long time, consensus has been that GNG is the paramount notability guideline. The other notability guidelines are meant as indicators (or perhaps shortcuts) to determine when, in most cases, a subject is likely to have received the required coverage, as a shortcut for quickly determining if any subject is article-worthy or not. For example, we have a supplementary notability guideline for films which lists criteria which "generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist." It's a helper guideline to suggest whether sources are likely to exist for a given film, but, always, sources are required. If you can show me a guideline or policy which states that we don't need sources, that GNG can be waived off, I will show you one which goes against WP:V. Ivanvector (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, there is no exception to WP:V, and if my argument seemed to assert such, I truly despair of my abilities! My point is that even if GNG is not the perfect guide in all instances, WP:V must be met. WP:V is a pillar, a whole 'nother level. I neither suggest sources are not needed, nor that GNG should be casually waived off. In fact if I thought this was anywhere near a casual exception, I wouldn't be investing so much time in it. I do think in this instance a supplementary notability guideline is needed. One does not exist for labels, so I must make a strong argument showing the reason why Wikipedia is better off by including, rather than excluding, this particular topic. That said, I maintain a supplementary notability guideline for labels is strongly suggested by NMUSIC, but it would be much preferable if it were explicitly spelled-out. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, this article is a perfect illustration for why the GNG is a Procrustean bed for some (many?) topics. If we want encyclopedic coverage of certain topics, but we hew solely to the GNG as if it were policy, we will inevitably come to situations where something clearly encyclopedic must be thrown away. (Conversely, we've seen that sometimes meeting the GNG is, in fact, not enough - thus the wars to implement WP:BIO1E.) We'd have the same problems (I think we have already had the same problems) with tiny hamlets in far-flung rural corners, or persons who played one or two games in Major League Baseball, or bronze medalists in the 1912 Olympics. But we are pretty sure that medaling in an Olympics is something noteworthy in and of itself, something that merits coverage in an encyclopedia. And so, some of us have it, everyone who medaled ought to have information provided in this encyclopedia for those curious about them. I think the same way about hitting national charts, and have in fact dedicated enormous amounts of time to writing articles about musicians who've scraped the lower rungs of pop charts internationally; I think there should be at least a skeletal article about every one of them. And we can do that and still meet WP:V; there are reliable books published listing everyone who's ever had a Major League at-bat, or listing everyone who's ever hit the Billboard 200. Those who find more sources can then fill them out, but at least some minimal amount of information can be provided for an inherently encyclopedic topic. Furthermore, we don't have WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems there, because there is a standard; rising to that standard means you're in, not rising to it means maybe you're out, unless you meet some other standard (of which the GNG can be one). A GNG-only standard would remove the bronze medalists and the chart-scrapers and the tiny rural map dots, but at what cost? This article rises to a standard - an existing standard, in an existing guideline - indicating its importance, such that removing it from the encyclopedia would serve to impoverish the corpus. "GNG or bust" is not policy; it doesn't even follow current guidelines, and I regard it as a partisan stance rather than some inevitability that we must insist upon in all cases. I take the opposite stance. Chubbles (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a band's albums receive copious reviews, but the band receives no independent coverage outside of their albums, should the band's article be deleted via WP:NOTINHERITED, so that we have several album articles but no artist article? If a writer's novel is widely reviewed, do we declare the book notable, but not the author? If this is now a widely accepted deletion rationale, it's a frankly silly one. Thankfully, I don't think it is. Substantial coverage of an artist's albums is de facto substantial coverage of the artist. WP:MUSIC, again, gives a clear rationale for establishing label notability, the only guideline that actually discusses labels specifically; it is not in contradiction with WP:NOTINHERITED, if the latter is read in its entirety. Chubbles (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely yes, on both counts. If a band's work is reviewed by multiple independent sources, then it's likely to pass WP:GNG, and its albums might as well. If a novel is an important work and is widely reviewed and criticized, but the author is otherwise unheard of, then we have an article about the novel but not about the artist. And it would be a very long stretch indeed to base an article on the publisher on one of its novels. You're right that, generally, coverage of an artist's albums is coverage of the artist, but not always. As for the record label, it does not inherit notability by having its name attached to notable things. WP:MUSIC says nothing about establishing the notability of record labels; the section which mentions indie labels is for establishing the notability of an artist who has released under such a label, not about the label itself. A notable record label has sources writing about it, not just reviewing the artists signed to it. Ivanvector (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IAR. Wikipedia is both a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture. We should treat these things differently, holding encyclopedic content to rigid and objective standards for inclusion and treating pop culture much more leniently — as the value in a compendium lies in its completeness. I don't see how deleting this article (or any of the multiple hundreds of thousands of articles vaguely like it) improves WP in the slightest. This is an established enough label for inclusion, in my view. That's a terrible AfD argument, I realize, but I believe there is truth in what I say. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that is a terrible AfD argument, but since you acknowledged it I'll just link to the general essay on that topic, for the benefit of others. We are not a compendium of popular culture, we are an encyclopedia. We have a lot of content on popular culture topics, because popular culture is well documented, but there's no double standard - all of these meet our rigid and objective standards for inclusion. Of course I know some pages don't, but WP:AADD again, and that's why we have deletion discussions. Ivanvector (talk) 18:02, 23 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.

Just a supplementary note to those following this discussion: thanks all for the unusually insightful debate here. I've started a thread at WT:MUSIC with a goal of developing a clearer standard for notability for record labels, and your input would be valuable. Please see WT:MUSIC#Notability standard for record labels. Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Park MBE (Socialite)[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I don't think the subject of this article meets the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. There is some coverage of her MBE on British-Korean community websites, but not much else. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Hesitant Delete. This article looks like it was written by editors who do not know what our Manual of Style is. I think this article needs to be cleaned up and the references re-added correctly.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 18:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real coverage is about her MBE, and that's just as part of a list of awardees.[1] Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete: Even on Google UK, the best I came up with was this paragraph: [2] -- not enough for the GNG. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - I think that MBE, by itself, is not evidence of notability. Can anyone find more sources? Currently it's a mess. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what I can find is here. As far as I see it, that's not significant enough coverage to establish notability. I don't think an MBE is either (by itself, as you say). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 23 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 // 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CardFlex, Inc.[edit]

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

An article by an SPA that was repeatedly deleted in the past as A7 and G11, apparently created only to document a lawsuit brought by the FTC against it and other companies. While the incident itself might be notable, the company is not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CardFlex is one of the biggest companies in its industry, with $4 billion in annual transactions. It also created and patented some of the more innovative products now used in its industry. That hardly describes a company that is not 'notable.' These attributes certainly place Cardflex above many smaller companies that currently have uncontested Wikipedia pages. The entry itself is objective about what the company is and what it does, and addresses the current FTC situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Renee360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As far as I could find, the only Reliable Source coverage this company has received was about the fraud case - in which they were one of several companies involved and not the principal. This item even suggests that they are no longer allowed to provide card processing services, which appears to have been their main line of business. If the above statements about the company's notability could be documented by Independent Reliable Sources, I would reconsider. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I spent a good deal of time combing through sources and working on the article. I think I brought it up to the best place it can be, given the available sourcing. But there's just not enough out there. Many of the mentions are trivial. I don't think notability has been established. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 24 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. G5. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bengali songs recorded by Sonu Nigam[edit]

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

Short and uneeded song list-see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kannada songs recorded by Sonu Nigam Wgolf (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – None of these songs are discussed in Sonu_Nigam#Bengali. It looks like he has too many songs to list them all, so that article should pick the most important ones. It's unclear why these were chosen other than that they appeared on the cited web page. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a speedy as a banned user. Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 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 --MelanieN (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Runa Laila[edit]

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

Long song list with only source being unreliable. Wgolf (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Speedy Delete, per CSD:G5. Article creator is blocked as a sock. Nakon 04:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable list. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:02, 24 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 Fan (film). The article's subject is found to not be independently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shriya Pilgaonkar[edit]

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

Actress who clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and the sources are not enough for WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soonWgolf (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Redirect the article to Fan, a Bollywood film, in which she is making her debut. Or redirect the article to Maganlal Dresswala, a short film, which she has directed. Regards, KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 12:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet NACTOR Himanshugarg06 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fan (film). She is playing her role in the film. 182.69.13.160 (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. Ch an der 16:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fan (film). WP:TOOSOON case. Lakun.patra (talk) 05:00, 24 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 Deleted (G5) by Mike V. nac –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bhojpuri songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle Wgolf (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Mike V. nac –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Bhosle discography[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (basically the same) Wgolf (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Shyamal Mitra[edit]

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

Largely unsourced list with over 500 songs with no links at all to them Wgolf (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Mike V NAC –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle Wgolf (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-is now being CSD for sockpuppetry. Wgolf (talk) 02:06, 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 Already speedy deleted by Swarm (talk · contribs), per WP:CSD#G5. postdlf (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepalese songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle Wgolf (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable list of items - pure listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 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 --MelanieN (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of family trees in Monk[edit]

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

WP:FANCRUFT Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per the nom, unnecessary fancruft. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely cruft. Necessary relationships can be described on the character list page, but we don't need family trees here to understand the show. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. I can't believe that this article survived for 4.5 years. There is obsessive academic interest in some fictional works, such as LoTR, but without that kind of attention, an article like this is simply cruft. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 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 speedy delete. G11. Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quizocalypsetrivia[edit]

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

Non-notable online game. No indications of any coverage anywhere but on their own website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For full consideration, the correct spacing might be "Quizocalypse Trivia", still no independent RS whichever I search. According to the official site, it appears the game hasn't started the closed beta (still recruiting testers). Delete as way WP:TOOSOON. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unable to locate any reliable, third-party sources talking about the game. APerson (talk!) 16:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources at all. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Speedy – WP:G11able as promotional, given use username.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:25, 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. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided by Carrite and others. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Aircraft Corporation[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Two refs in the article, and possibly an entry in Janes All The World's Aircraft, but these are little more than directory entries and the company is not the primary, or even significant focus of any of the three publications. The article is a one line stub and contains nothing more than is in the article about the only aircraft that it apparently produced. As such it fails to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. AussieLegend (✉) 12:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Acme Sportsman. Since the company did produce an aeroplane, it needs some space. But there is no justification for separate articles. The company is the more general topic, so the content on the specific aeroplane should be merged in here and the aircraft article made a redirect. The cleanest way to preserve significant edit history is probably to delete this article and then move the plane article across. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Acme Sportsman per WP:NOTINHERITED the notability of the aircraft is not inherited by the manufacturer. The hatnote should be added to the aircraft article afterwards (modified to be a {{redirect}} type ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1929 has an entry on the company and I have incorporated this information, plus expanded the article somewhat from the original stub using this and the other refs. While still short, I believe that it now makes notability requirements, as it has multiple independent references and contains information that would not normally be merged to an aircraft type article, such as company staffing. I would ask that editors who have already made their thoughts known above re-visit the article in light of its current state. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" in reliable sources. The sources used in the article are still little more than directory entries, despite the expansion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jane's is the definitive work on aviation companies and aircraft types and has been so for over 100 years. It has established notability in dozens of other AfD debates. There basically is no more reliable source than Janes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so just because a company is listed in Janes doesn't mean that the company is. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps you are misunderstanding. There is no need to discuss the inheritance of notability. The company has an entry in Janes all its own, which shows the company is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained below, an entry in a directory containing thousands of entries does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A company that built a total of 3 aircraft comprising 2 models in the 1920's? This isn't the early era, this is post-WWI. Definitely lacking. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability on Wikipedia is not determined by how many aircraft a company built, but whether there are multiple independent refs that are available. In this case there are and it makes the criteria to be kept. We don't only write about Boeing here, but about the small companies and the the less successful ones, too. It all forms a more complete history of aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, minor news stories, are examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a company that actually produced aircraft with independent source like Janes is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the requirement for notability. The requirement is that "significant coverage" is required, and that is not the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's All The World's Aircraft is not discriminating, so while Janes is reliable, it is of the database sort of reference. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually that is not accurate. As we have discovered at WikiProject Aircraft, while attempting to flesh out articles on both aircraft types and manufacturers, in a surprising number of cases there is no coverage in Janes, so despite the series title it is not "all the world's aircraft", just the more notable ones. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of coverage of one company doesn't make another company notable. That's not how notability works. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a company profile in a reliable source does. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources". A single entry in a book containing thousands of entries is not "significant coverage". Jane's is a directory, along with the other mentions, and inclusion does not establish notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Here's indication (snippet) of coverage in the 1930 Aircraft Year Book. Also, it would seem, chapter-level coverage in the 1973 book The Theory of Management Systems. Even if this article never gets any bigger, the standing information has value. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are great finds. I have added the Aircraft Year Book for 1930 ref to the article along with some new text from the work. I think this is pretty conclusive about the notability of the company as we now have profiles in five publications. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1930 Aircraft Year Book is a directory and inclusion does not establish notability. Similarly, the entry in The Theory of Management Systems seems to be one of many cases in the publication. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The publication does not address Acme Aircraft Corporation, but merely a single case from the company. This does not establish notability either. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one is agreeing with you. Since the article was expanded there have only been "keep" entries here and not a single participant has supported your move to delete the article. Hopefully this AfD will be closed soon, as it has now run a week. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 24 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 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Club Championship and AFC Champions League records and statistics[edit]

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

Unsourced (an external link is no reference) affair that read like WP:OR and fancruft The Banner talk 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, only need more cites, just see European Cup and UEFA Champions League records and statistics.--Lisan1233 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is the major event in Asian club soccer, like the European Champions League. This is a list of results that has been split from the main articles where it would have taken too much space. These lists are allowed for major sporting events, for the major statistics only. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable competition comparable to other continental level competitions who also have such articles. Needs additional formatting and a reduction in cruft and disorientatingly coloured tablesm but these are not reasons to delete. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as above; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely Notable. Needs better copyediting. Vinay84 (talk) 03:12, 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 --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of top association football goal scorers by country[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and poorly sourced. Lack of independent third party references for verifiability. JMHamo (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a valid article, and is clearly a notable topic - it just needs to be improved, not deleted. Countries where there are no references can be deleted until they are sourced properly. Number 5 7 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable topic, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly Sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybest 7 7 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:NOTSTATS. – Michael (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Fenix down (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Information should be included in articles about the individual leagues. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:40, 24 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IdiotBox[edit]

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

Non-notable web content. PROD declined by author. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable YouTube series. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisheriesmgmt (talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 March 2015
Delete – per nom. Cites are about the actors, not the series. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 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. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Musk[edit]

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

The IP left the following reason at the talk page: I have googled this person and have found no additional relevant articles that make her meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. She is an published author, and so are probably another 1,000,000 plus people on this planet. She married a billionaire, this does not make her notable. I can't see why she has a wikiepedia entry as in my humble opinion she is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.24.118 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Nomination added by --Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC) (note that I have no opinion on the notability). Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is notable because she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the core definition of WP:GNG. It's not a matter of why someone is notable, but if someone is notable. The nom's subjective opinion ("She married a billionaire") has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. Just the Marie Claire, The Daily Dot and Toronto Star articles, that are already linked in the article, demonstrate notability. If the nom wants to cite WP:IGNORE as their deletion rationale, they're free to. A person can become notable for reasons that don't seem right, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed with Oakshade, not much else I can add to that. She seems to have quite a bit of notability, and whether that's independent of her ex-husband or not is irrelevant. 128.84.127.74 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed with Oakshade. Also, I read an ^[1] article on Quora written by "Justine Musk", and went to consult wikipedia to see what, if any, her connection to Elon Musk was. I was so happy to see the page, and sad to see it being considered for deletion. It seems to me that as long as she continues to publicly speak and write, she'll be notable enough to keep. Besides, how can I tell if she's becoming more notable, without a wikipedia page to track the articles she's writing? Jorgbrown (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Oakshade's persuasive arguments. A google search quickly identifies many articles written by or about Justine Musk, which seems to be evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.9.30 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-Steve-Jobs-Elon-Musk-Richard-Branson

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bogomira Jeromel[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Prod removed by WP:SA creator. Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete; I tried to find Slovene-language sources of better quality than the two cited, but failed. So there is a new-age portal and an obscure catholic journal - not enough to establish notability, IMO. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:07, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 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. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made in over 14 days. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro M. Rocha[edit]

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

vanity page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feline1 (talk • contribs) 03:40, February 6, 2015‎

Comment This discussion page was created over a month ago without the afd2 template and never trancluded to a log page. Fixed now--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 13:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 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 // 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IVault[edit]

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

Prod challenged. May not meet WP:NSOFT. JodyB_talk 12:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 02:28, 16 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 10:32, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hendra All Stars[edit]

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

This article was prodded but prod was disputed on talk page. I do not think it meets WP:ATH. JodyB_talk 12:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete amateur clubs are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable amateur team. Tavix | Talk 04:09, 23 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 // 00:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datebook (dating agency)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, however I'm aware I may be just too jaded after the promotional attempts of Larryd19 and DatebookDating on the primary page, Datebook. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Advertisement it appears. Wgolf (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brad Stephenson. This doesn't appear to be particularly notable but the creator has an article so unless that gets nominated and deleted, there's no reason not to redirect. 199.87.130.130 (talk) 03:05, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Waverider[edit]

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

Article entirely unsourced since creation in 2007. Searches for "Operation Waverider" or "Yonderbee" do not turn up anything anywhere. I was also unable to find any information about USS Fox (CG-33) being in the Caribbean at the time—it was a Pacific Fleet ship and probably not in the habit of hanging around the Caribbean. The article also lists the IAPF as a participant in the operation, even though the force did not appear to exist at the time. — daranz [ t ] 11:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this seems to have been a fairly routine looking operation and so is unlikely to be notable. At worst it's a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable and routine event, possible hoax, or possibly based on someone's recollection of events while they were in the Navy. Lots of international shortwave stations broadcast similar coded messages in the era. Was there even a law against a maritime ship transmitting code signals in the way described from the high seas? (You caught them, now what? Torpedo them? Board and seize? Couldn't they just thumb their nose at you and continue transmitting?) Seems like a non-notable event. Tagged as needing refs to verify the info for many years. I found nothing related to this on Google. Edison (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mobitaz[edit]

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

Non-notable software, no substantial coverage in reliable sources, article created by the company that produces it. The sources cited on the page are representative of the short list of matches Google comes up with for Mobitaz: listings on self-submission sites. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything on Google that would indicate significant coverage in reliable sources, and the article isn't really much help, either. Maybe there's somewhere it could be merged or redirected, but I can't think of any offhand. It doesn't look like anyone has created list of test automation software yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 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 // 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Services Commerce[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:NEO based on the fact that a company called the Blur Group refers to its own particular type of e-commerce as "s-commerce". Sources only refer in very broad terms to cloud computing, crowdsourcing and outsourcing. The only suggestion that services commerce is a significant term ("In 2014, the Financial Times reported that analysts for financial brokerage firm Liberum estimated that the addressable market for s-commerce is worth approximately $1.1 trillion.") is unsourced, and appears to come from an article headlined "Blur Group reports surge in ‘s-commerce’" which just quotes Liberum reporting directly on the Blur Group's prospects, and is presumably only using the term because it's the one Blur are using to define their business. McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 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 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure OR created by an SPA, sources about services/s commerce in the article are poor and as nom said seem to be of primary usage. Murry1975 (talk) 22:57, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revise n learn[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in reliable sources that establish the subject notability. The article serve no other purpose than to promote the small tutorial centre. I would have love to "Prod" it but I find it very unnecessary since there is no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator summed up the reasons well; only purpose of the page seems to be promotional. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 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 // 00:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Fito González[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in reliable sources that establish the subject notability. Gonzalez' should wait until he becomes notable and someone with no WP:COI will write about him here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've removed most of the content of the article as a copyright violation from the subject's website. Hut 8.5 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he passes the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 23 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 // 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beenleigh Hawks[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:CLUB or WP:GNG. Part of a large set of articles on non-notable Australian clubs. This was prodded in the past, but prod removed by creator. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find significant coverage in secondary sources. Tavix | Talk 04:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete amateur club with no evidence of third party coverage. Given the status of sirburban baseball in Australia, reliable sources is highly unlikely. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 23 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 // 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One More Time (Max Coveri song)[edit]

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

No cited sources that indicates notability for a single, including an appearance in a national music chart. TheGGoose (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence to suggest this song has charted as required by the music policy. Mattg82 (talk) 21:35, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seka Severin de Tudja[edit]

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

Mentions a few sources that have got no description or information about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Hajme 16:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Appears to be a significant artist. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 17 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 10:26, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Artist as a Young Machine[edit]

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

Non-notable organized event, as far as I can tell. I found mention of it in the Computer Music Journal and a Usenet announcement, but no substantive coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external links to the article. Substantive coverage is difficult to locate online as the exhibit pre-dates the widespread use of the Internet, but the event was of sufficient interest and historical importance within the Canadian arts and technology communities to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I will post scans of reference material if I locate any. Sassan Sanei (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sassan Sanei: you don't need to post scans and sources don't need to be online. They just have to be available. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:01, 16 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 10:26, 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 // 00:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi Top 20[edit]

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

Single network chart failing WP:BADCHARTS. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source in the article is simply a listing of this chart. No significant independent coverage found. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 17 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 10:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just no independent reliable coverage to be found. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:25, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Brooks Heisey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. This person has received little coverage. There is little evidence this person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is acknowledged as a leading consulting mining engineer in the Ontario in the 1930's in 2 different Canadian daily newspapers in large Canadian cities Ottawa and Winnipeg upon his death and was the president of a mine

His geological survey work for the Department of Mines for the Province of Ontario is referenced 2 -3 times in different online sources

His work is recognised is two different independent sources Unionville — Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO I am the author of the article and I have thought some more about it and I agree this article should be deleted Unionville(talk) Editor has changed his mind - see below --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited secondary sources, especially the Ottawa Gazette and the Winnipeg Tribune, clearly demonstrate the subject's notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:45, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A couple of obituaries isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they aren't obituaries they are newspaper articles from major cities he had never lived in Ottawa and Winnipeg, he lived in Toronto, but probably not enough as it stands Unionville (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not obituaries? Their headlines announce his death. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the definition of obituary in Wikipedia and you are correct but the wikipage on obituaries says large City newspapers print obituaries for people considered significant (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many prominent papers cited and acknowledge him as a well-known figure in the mining community. His death is mentioned in multiple papers across a few provinces and these are not paid obituaries. Has made considerable contributions to mining industry of the 20's and 30's as mentioned in sources.
With the additional sources and numerous cited secondary sources, Northern Miner and numerous obituaries in important Canadian daily newspapers across the country Globe and Mail , Toronto Daily Star , Ottawa Gazette and the Winnipeg Tribune describing him as "Noted Mine Engineer" I have changed my mind and I believe notability has been established Unionville (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources now support notability as a mining engineer and corporate executive. And note that the Nom has changed his opinion back to Keep in light of new sourcing, though he did not scratch out his previous iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:51, 24 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 Kadıköy#Attractions, Entertainment and eating. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Türkbalön[edit]

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

I'm not sure this is a notable restaurant. The only sources I can find seem to scrape this page. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove promotional content and then redirect and merge to Kadıköy#Attractions.2C_Entertainment_and_eating [3], [4]. Not independently notable but worthy of mentioning in the main article, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kadıköy – Attractions, Entertainment and eating. Not finding significant coverage to qualify a standalone article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the merge/redirect proposal above. Not enough for a standalone article, but deserves a mention in Kadıköy. Cavarrone 16:49, 24 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 // 01:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology Certified Professional[edit]

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

It's not clear to me that this is a notable certification programme (see Professional certification (computer technology) for other certifications). The notability is basically inheriting itself from Institute of IT Professionals. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a COI by article creator. Fails SIGCOV, no non-trivial mentions in independent publications. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - supposed references go to dead links. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 23 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. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Prabhudesai[edit]

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

promotional and non notable, withcopyvio illustrations of the entire text of her articles. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too early to appear on encyclopedia. Strong Delete to this promotional stuff. Educationtemple (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a WP:TOOSOON and Promotional case. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:55, 24 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. Davewild (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ion-X glass[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not notable Flat Out let's discuss it 05:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not every minor thing in the world needs an article, I guess if we have a "Phone glass" related article we could merge it but pretty sure we don't.... –Davey2010^Talk 12:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete""" - Not Notable ( used only in one product ) not enough available in general about the product for further details.110.149.155.214 (talk) 00:41, 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 delete. Nakon 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Midland[edit]

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

Contested PROD - Subject appears to fail notability guidelines, as none of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are met by the sources listed or by any others that I can find. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Midland published one book in the vanity press in the Netherlands and the US. Book and author received some positive attention but not sufficient for an author article in WP. Maybe after subsequent publications. gidonb (talk) 19:45, 24 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 01:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Nakano Rasmussen[edit]

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

No claims to notability per WP:CREATIVE. Sources are primary. Level of detail in sources doesn't match level of detail in article, suggesting an autobiography. Way, way WP:TOOSOON. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Too soon, if everWgolf (talk) 03:06, 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. Based on the arguments presented, the subject appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Nakon 01:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janaka Thissakuttiarachchi[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article should be kept, but think the article needs moving. I think they do meet WP:POLITICIAN as they are a member of a provincial legislature, which is sufficient to meet that notability guideline. There is this, this and this articles which talk about 'Janaka Tissa Kuttiarachchi', while this article calls him 'Janaka Tissa-kuttiarachchi'. There are several quite short articles talking about his support for Mahinda Rajapaksa at the recent presidential election such as here. So I think a case can be made he meets both WP:POLITICIAN and probably the WP:GNG, but should be retitled "Janaka Tissa Kuttiarachchi". Davewild (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not really convinced that Sri Lankan provincial councils count as true legislatures. Do they have real autonomy, or are they just the equivalent of say county councils in Britain (whose members do not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN)? Sri Lanka doesn't appear to count as a federal republic, and it's usually only those that fall into the category of countries with state or provincial legislatures. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't just cover any elected member of any council, despite claims to that effect that I've seen in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to our article Provincial councils of Sri Lanka they have legislative power "over a variety of matters including agriculture, education, health, housing, local government, planning, road transport and social services". I think that shows they are quite powerful and the article also says this is part of the constitution. They are certainly far more powerful than your comparison to English County councils. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because that just looks like a county council equivalent to me - they do pretty much all that (and have done all of it in the past). I'm prepared to be swayed on this, but so far I still see little real evidence that they're actual legislatures. The only thing that might swing it is that they have "ministers", but that's just a word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to this page each Provincial council has a chief minister and a board of ministers. This says "The Provincial Council has power to pass a "statute" on any subject that is assigned to it under the Constitution subject to the condition that it should not violate the Constitution." and that they have "Legislative powers for the Provincial Council". The list of powers for the Provincial Councils can make legislation is here. To me these look a lot stronger powers than says the members of the Welsh Assembly from 1999 for which we have articles on every member - Category:Wales AMs 1999–2003. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every country sets up its division of powers between different levels of government differently, according to local needs and structures. So the fact that those look like "county council" powers to you doesn't necessarily negate viewing this body as a legislature — to me as a Canadian, that reads very much more like powers of a provincial legislature. I get that in England (but, importantly, not Scotland or Wales) it's all either Westminster or the local city/county/other-equivalent-local-authority governments, with no intermediate level in between them to assume any government powers — but that's a "government structure of England" thing, not an "inherent nature of the powers themselves" thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do, but the fact remains that we don't accord every elected council similar status under WP:POLITICIAN and we need to determine what does and does not count as a legislature. What I was challenging was merely the apparent assumption that because he was an elected member of a council he met the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, since this is clearly not the case. Since User:Davewild has bothered to provide further evidence (beyond a simple "elected member = notable"), I suspect that Sri Lankan provincial councils do probably count as legislatures. Incidentally, given that Scotland and Wales are actually separate countries, above even provinces, the fact they do or do not have legislatures is irrelevant to the discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established according to WP:POLITICIAN. Provincial councils have the power to pass legislations and therefore qualify as legislatures.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they pass actual laws? Or just local bye-laws? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the constitution and judge for yourself.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means an expert in the nuances of Sri Lanka's political system, but nothing in Provincial councils of Sri Lanka gives me any substantive reason to doubt that they count as first-order divisional (state/provincial) legislatures. If there's a better reason to doubt that than "those would be county-level powers in England" (which, great, but we ain't talking about England), then I'm willing to reconsider — but I'd need to actually hear one first. Keep, though certainly content and referencing improvements are still needed. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I merely use English counties as an example of a first-level administrative sub-division of a similar size whose councillors are not considered to meet WP:POLITICIAN and ask why members of councils of these divisions are (other than "because they're members of first-level sub-division councils"). No need to be snide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The importance of the legislative body has been established in this debate and accordingly this person meets the relevant notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone left a comment at WT:POLITICIAN asking for input here. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - according to our article on Provinces of Sri Lanka, those provinces are the first tier (the equivalent of "states") and "districts" are the next tier down (2nd tier, equivalent to local councils) which are then divided again (into Divisional Secretary's Divisions) and then again (into Grama Niladhari Divisions). There are 256 third-tier divisions in the country, which sounds about equivalent to an Australian local council or a council of aldermen. It's obvious that the system doesn't really have "natural" equivalences in the UK, US, Australia, etc making comparisons more difficult. But if we accept what our articles say they he is the equivalent of a state assemblyman in the US or state MP in Australia. Even as the second-least-populated province in the country, the province this fellow sits in the legislature for has 1.2 million people. Some of our states and territories (Northern Territory - 250,000, Tasmania - 500,000) have their own functional legislatures and their MPs are considered to meet WP:POLITICIAN. That said, needs sources per BLP and such sources would make a decision here much easier. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to possibly play Devil's advocate (see my comment above), English counties often have about the same number of people, but county councillors are not considered to meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Size isn't especially relevant. It's the powers of the council and status of the sub-division that matter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are English shire counties with as many as 1.4 million people, but there are also counties with only 100,000. At 1.2 million, this Sri Lankan province is the second-least-populated. It's among the smallest at 1.2 million, whereas England's counties are among the largest at 1.4 million. They seem far more comparable to Australian states (in that context) than they do English counties. Population tends to necessitate the sorts of services an administrative division must provide which in turn necessitates the legal power to do so. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:30, 24 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 // 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest (North) Dormitory III[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an unbuilt college dorm that has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unnotable dorm (with confusing directions) that was never built? Sheesh, that's about as insignificant as it gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Digital Format Registry[edit]

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

No indication this is notable; fails WP:GNG -- Calidum 03:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - of course this is notable - what checks were done before submitting this AfD? Does the nominator understand what makes and fails WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs)

Comment: that project is no longer active. Since I can see three plausible outcomes for this, (keep, delete or redirect to unified digital format registry - I know the latter does not exist), maybe both nominator and first commenter could comment on why it fails or passes WP:GNG. This AfD looks like a textbook case of WP:JNN. Tigraan (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable, third party coverage has been provided to show this is notable. Merely existing with passing mentions in books isn't good enough. -- Calidum 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calidum, how many book references does a subject require to be notable? How many does this have?

User:Tigraan yes it probably could be renamed to a larger article on the various US legacy digital registries, with more recent sources added In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Harvard Library. The EL goes nowhere relevant. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That list of book references is a sell, and I question whether the nom really read through them before dismissing them all as passing mentions. I did look several dozen over, and read several that spend a paragraph or more discussing the subject. That the registry doesn't exist any more is entirely irrelevant to the obvious fact that the subject is discussed in quite literally dozens of books. What more is the nom looking for, parades down Mass Ave and parents naming their children after the founders? Ravenswing 21:00, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Evidently has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. APerson (talk!) 16:37, 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. Lack of references with a BLP Nakon 01:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Niosi[edit]

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

While a well known animator on the internet, heard of Kirbopher years ago, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources on him. The references provided are from a Facebook page and a wikia so there's nothing going with this one. GamerPro64 03:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment given his credits, wouldn't WP:ENT cover this guy? Artw (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe but this is a living bibliography page. Shouldn't it need reliable sources?GamerPro64 03:37, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a Biography of a living person, we should have at least one substantial source that is not from the subjects website, facebook, or a wiki. Without anything approaching that, we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 23 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 01:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Pittman[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC. Actress has only one role in an non-notable film ("Five Days in the 'A'"), and few reliable sources cover this person. I can't find evidence from reliable sources for the only claim of significance in the article ("Tina was chosen to headline Hip Hop Weekly's SXSW Showcase stage alongside Hot Boy Turk, Benzino, and Althea Heart."). Even if that claim was proven, it still doesn't fulfill any WP:MUSIC criteria. Esquivalience ^t 00:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Davey2010. My searches found nothing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:48, 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, we seems to be fine now--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Jones (soccer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that He hasn't played a fully pro league match nor has he received significant coverage. Therefore he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Seattle Sounders. This does not confer notability, as WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly says that it requires players to have played actual matches. He has not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are three players that are first team members this season which have not played a full season: Darwin Jones, Cristian Roldan, and Victor Mansaray. I argue that we should allow the pages to remain for a short period of time since they will get more coverage as the season procedes. Secondly, this would prevent gaps in the Sounders roster template: Template:Seattle Sounders FC squad Stevetauber (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The invalidity of this argument is perhaps the longest standing consensus of the WikiProject football. Applying WP:NSPORT prematurely in anticipation of future appearances was rejected at afd no less than 27 times in the past twelve months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to move the article to draft? Which is preferred in this case? Stevetauber (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to easily restore the page (undelete)? It might make sense then to do so.... Stevetauber (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most admins will restore articles they deleted when asked, if the reason for deletion no longer applies. Failing that, deletion review is also an option. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. How to proceed? Stevetauber (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there's consensus. This keeps getting argued about. Deleting article of players who are part of the first squad of fully-professional teams is a waste of our time, and I don't know why people keep nominating such articles, only to have then recreated days later. If you are so utterly convinced that this article can't be present for a few extra days, simply move the article to draft without the WikiDrama of an AFD. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the players do not meet the notability guidelines, they should be deleted. This has been one of the longest standing consensuses of the Football project. Both articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Roldan, Delete Jones - Roldan just made his pro debut as ArsenalFan just stated so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving though. Jones still fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - Jones just made his debut for S2. So he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roldan: Just made debut. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roldan, Delete Jones - as above. Giant Snowman 13:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am withdrawing the nomination of Roldan, since that article now meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - Roldan's already made a debut ... I don't know why people waste everyone's time with these nominations. Just move the articles to Draftspace already ... Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draftspace - This would be great so we don't have to bug the deleting admin. I just learned about draft space recently and would have done this to start. Stevetauber (talk) 23:24, 17 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 // 02:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roldan delete Jones - Roldan has played ina fully professional league, so meets WP:NFOOTY. Re jones, 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) 16:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roldan delete Jones - Agree with Fenix down. I've created a draft in my user space since I agree that Public Draft Space is not a reasonable location. Stevetauber (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jones - Jones now meets WP:NFOOTY since last night he debuted for Seattle Sounders FC 2 in United Soccer League. Stevetauber (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jones Meets WP:NFOOTY he has made his debut in a fully professional league. Rolden also meets WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 23 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. Willing to userfy upon request. Nakon 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh and Blood (TV series)[edit]

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

This is not an upcoming television series (as stated). This is a television pilot which has just recently been ordered. Casting has begun, but a script is not even written yet. This non-notable pilot may never become a series. WP:TOOSOON Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filming on this month and script WAS written. Television pilots is notable.--Alrofficial (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my mistake about not being written, but that does not make it notable. So many pilots never make it to air and never become series. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has many articles about unaired television pilots. This pilot made notable many publications on Deadline.com, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Per WP:FFILM, it has notability.--Alrofficial (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's picked up in May, then we can have an article; right now as for all the pilots in-process for May, it's nothing but WP:CRYSTAL. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 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 00:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - I recommend userifying this. The articles not bad and deleting it would be a waste of time, but notability won't be known until we have a definite yes or no to it being picked up. JT_dale^Talk~ 12:27, 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 02:32, 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 redirect to Battle of Ichkeria. Article is currently a stub and a duplicate of a more substantial article (even if the stub article is older). There is consensus towards redirecting towards the Battle of Ichkeria, so I'll close as such. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dargo (1842)[edit]

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

Replaced by better name Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This 1-line stub was created by a user who has been blocked. It has been replaced by Battle of Ichkeria, which is what the Russian Wiki calls it. Neither Baddeley nor Gammer nor Blanch, the standard English sources, give it a name, so we might as well be consistent. The name does not need to be retained since no source, to my knowledge, uses it and since it was not a battle of Dargo, but a failed campaign to capture Dargo. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No need to have two articles on the one subject. Probably created in good faith so suggest turning into a redirect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been gone about the wrong way. Battle of Dargo (1842) existed first and should have simply been renamed Battle of Ichkeria (if this title is indeed correct). We don't create a new article under a new name then delete the previous article. Given his edit summary on the latter article, User:Benjamin Trovato clearly knew the former article already existed when he created it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to which ever name is the WP:COMMONNAME. These appear to both be the same event, but apparently there is a disagreement as to what the proper name is.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:49, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle of Ichkeria. That is a substantive article. Since this is about Russian history, we should be willing to take the lead fropm Russian WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 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. Discussions of merging, or WP:BOLD merging, can be done elsewhere. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Profile (novel)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK google gives nothing notable, authors website doesn't mention it(?), info from Fantastic Fiction review could be incorporated with authors article Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding this afd, to include to a broader number of articles: making it a merge of all of his novels into Chris Westwood (author), including:

At most each of the articles could have 2-3 sources, and could be summarized in 1-2 paragraphs without significant loss of value, and many of them are not independently notable on there own (and the ones that might be could be adequetly covered in the author article). Sadads (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 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) 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a few reviews listed at his official website. Some of them look like blogs to me, but I guess I wouldn't know. I don't know children's literature, and I especially don't know British children's literature. There are a few quotations from The Guardian and The Times, however. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Increasingly in both contemporary fiction, and children's fiction, the best reviews are coming out of group-blog-like-websites which have an editorial group (so sit on the margins of our reliable source requirements), and have some standards on what they create. That being said, most of these particular books don't have more than a couple reviews, and one or two of each of them being the "pay-for-review" types (publisher's weekly, kirkus, etc). I don't think any but a few these articles will ever stand on their own, and could be dealt with better in one central article (you could talk about themes across the board, for example), Sadads (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment have added plot summaries to the author article Chris Westwood (author) from the book articles. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:37, 16 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 02:32, 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 // 01:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronism (album)[edit]

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

There are no references regarding this album what so ever, not even a title or release date. It is only speculated that this is the album of King 810 since they had recorded an album in 2008, planned to be released via Equal Vision Records under the name King in 2009, however nothing was released (or it least nothing was covered by any media) and left the label in 2009. With only speculation behind this article I don't think a redirect is even necessary here either. SilentDan (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect to King 810 per WP:CHEAP. Unless there is an alternative use for Anachronism (album) [or "Anachronism (King 810 album)"], there is no reason that it should not be kept as a plausible search term for those familiar with the band history, and this is sourced at [5]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Spirit-Of-Metal.com is a user contributed encyclopaedia, much like Wikipedia, only it does not use sources. That is an unreliable source. SilentDan (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 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 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band's article suggests the album wasn't officially released. Therefore it is very unlikely to have charted or garnered any pro reviews. Mattg82 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 01:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L&F (production duo)[edit]

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

Requested deletion, per provided rationale: My name is Uforo Ebong A.K.A. Bongo The Drum GAHD and I am requesting that the L&F (production duo) Wikipedia page be taken down. We are no longer together, as we are currently pursuing different paths. ticket:2015031110002836. As I am nominating by request I have no opinion on the outcome either way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? -- the lead claims they won a Grammy. Sorry, but it that's true...notability does not expire. Pax 08:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not see any confirmation for Grammy, but the notability has been demonstrated in the article, and the nomination rationale is not valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 24 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aadan-gurey maxamed Cabdille[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOET. Page also sounds like a fan wrote it. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to be included in anthologies of Somali poetry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, including Aaden-Gurey Maxamed Cabdille article, there are very limited articles about Somalia and Somalis on Wikipedia. For this particular article and the general subject of Somali Literature, any article that makes to publication should be kept because there are millions of articles about people, things and places with little sourcing or lacking standard Wiki page layout. Somali literature survived on the mercy of individually memorized bits, whether poems, stories and facts about historical event (s). Whether a fun wrote it or not, this article deserves a stay and not a deletion. Perhaps call for an expansion or additional sourcing but not a quick deletion. His Seventy and Ten poem about old age is famous throughout Somalia. Baardheere (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A perfect example of the faults inherent to original research. Pax 06:39, 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 // 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. How few or many articles on a particular subject there are on wiki is irrelevant. What matters is the importance of the subject and to a much lesser extent, the quality of the article. If this subject fails on notability, then it should be deleted even if it is the only article on the topic. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:57, 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 speedy delete WP:G12: copyvio from http://apkmanager.com/apk/rs.ignite.lighton czar ⨹ 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LightON ~ enlight the enigma[edit]

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

Non-notable game; fails WP:GNG; very little coverage. Game developer has no article, so merging isn't an option. Esquivalience ^t 01:34, 17 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) • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the page about lightON game to improve it's visibility in the web search. The content that I included is basic, but currently there's not much more to include. I hope the game will become notable some day, so let's give it a chance. Amilosavljevic77 07:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as promotional, as stated above. A search turned up no WP:RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entire text of the body is a copyvio from [6] --Pres N 18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Cinema (company)[edit]

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

This company is not noteworthy enough. Article appears to be only updated as self-promotion. The movies referenced are effectively screenings and their directors are not involved in these screenings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu7931 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 2 March 2015

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The original author was focussed entirely on this company and its sister enterprises, probably with a WP:COI. Most of the promotional material from earlier versions has gone, but so has nearly all of the detail about their botched "Back to the Future" screening last year which (in my recollection of events) is where their notability lies. What's left is little more than a list of films. Bazj (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unlike most AFD articles, I've actually heard of this company, though it's involvement in at least two events - the "Back to the Future" screening which was cancelled last year, and now the fact that they are about the screen "The Empire Strikes Back". It seems as though the furore around "Back to the Future" has now raised the profile of the company's events enough that it will now be regularly covered in genre new sources. This brings us out of WP:EVENT territory, and implies that the company is notable in its own right. Bluap (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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! 07:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have edited the page and not working for them so not self-promotion. You could say the Wikipedia page about Wikipedia is self-promotion. It gained more knowledge by using Back to the Future last year though. Needs more work on controversies as were other problems than just BTTF. Charlr6 (talk) 19:35, 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 // 01:29, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM She – Miss Universe India[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Not enough sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. An otherwise well-written article with unfortunate sourcing. (If only more of these contest articles included tables, we could boldy redirect all the notability-failing bios into them.) Pax 12:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added eight additional references to the article from various WP:RS including Miss India Magazine,[7] IBNLive,[8] newindianexpress.com [9], The Hindu [10] [11] [12], The Express Tribune [13], and the sakaaltimes.com [14]. With these references added across numerous sources the article now meets WP:GNG. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You better start reading WP:RS again, especially about "passing mentions" and "independent sources". The Banner talk 23:14, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 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. Also, rename to Kony, Inc. . Nakon 01:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KonyOne Platform[edit]

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

spammy article mainly devoted to listing there routine features, all ofit based upon articles in the trade press that are weither direct PR ornery highly PR oriented. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ADMASQ. "Currently, Kony has over 350 customers..." *I* have more customers than that. Pax 21:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company is definitely notable and tone can be addressed through editing. The number of customers does not reflect on notability one way or another - Boeing likely doesn't have more than 350 customers, for example - and this isn't a consumer product. According to market research by Gartner, Kony is the 3rd largest player in the app development platform business, behind IBM and SAP: [15]. The company has >1400 employees across 7 other countries and more than $50 million in annual revenue as of 2 years ago, so clearly the "350 customers" line is highly deceptive. Other substantial RS coverage includes: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and so on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Acetotyce: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:32, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the problem here is in the structure of the article. The page is about a product that evolves with time, and not about the company - Kony Inc (I'd assume that's the current name based on what they have on their website in the footer, besides we need to differentiate, since we also have the "Joseph" Kony.)

I agree with ThaddeusB - the company is notable enough to keep it on wikipedia. It's a big player in an industry that is poised to explode. The fact that Gartner featured them in their report is significant. Gartner does not analyze companies and industries just because. They have to be big enough, so that later Gartner can charge them $50k-150k and up for using their report.

I noticed that KonyOne (as platform) does not exist anymore, now it's called Kony Mobility Platform [23]. This platform includes: Kony Visualizer (to develop the front-end) & Kony MobileFabric (back-end), plus some additions.

Overall, I would suggest changing the focus to Kony Inc., away from the Platform.

If more experienced wiki users have no objections I will proceed with some minor edits:

Update the platform name.
Add a History section. Consolidate historical info there.
Add this 2015 report I found as a source [24] by Ovum Ltd.. Kony scores top together with IBM & Salesforce -- Danskix 1:34PM, 13 March 2015 (PST)

Agreed, the article should be called KonyOne (was planning on renaming after AfD ends) and focus on the company. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:13, 16 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 // 01:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB - If the article stays about the platform then it should be called - Kony Mobility Platform (that's the new name according to the official website) [25]. If we change the focus and make the article about the company then I suggest we call it - Kony Inc.--Danskix (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2015 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle (doll)[edit]

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

Delete and redirect to Annabelle (film). Topic has no notability outside of the film of the same name. No in-depth and serious coverage by any WP:RS and WP:FRIND source. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Some slight notability, but nothing warranting a standalone article.--Auric talk 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An alternative possibility is to redirect to haunted doll. But it seems rather unlikely that article would survive an AfD. Walled garden? Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Annabelle (film) - Seeing as there's not much evidence of notability seems better to M&R as opposed to deleting. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, We use reliable sources to establish notability there are at least four reliable sources which give the doll significant coverage International Business Times, iHorror, AOL, and Travel Channel which deciates a segment to the doll. The doll has influenced two major motion picture blockbusters. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is rather credulous, saying that the doll could move on its own and could write messages, etc. That does not seem like a reliable WP:FRIND source. The second one is about a different doll. The third seems like the best one, but even that falls short of what normally one would consider a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. (For example, the claim that a priest lives on site to bless the doll daily seems like marketing rather than real journalism.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions are against policy established by Wikipedia. We document events and beliefs objectively, not subjectively. The first source is secondary and reliable even if you personally disbelieve its contents. The second source only mentions the doll in one sentence so coverage is trivial, the third is reliable same as the first, and then there is the travel channel source which you have completely ignored. I am seeing significant coverage from at least three independent reliable sources. This doll inspired two major motion pictures grossing over half a billion rather counter intuitive to suggest the doll is not notable. Wikipedia is not a vote, I've addressed the issues regarding rationals for this AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That a doll can "move on its own", can "write messages" and is "responsible For deaths" are WP:REDFLAG claims and requires high quality sourcing rather than sensational coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term claimed means story based not fact based. The article is documents a notable urban legend not a fringe theory. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your addition of the term "urban legend" to the article was a well intentioned effort, however we require at least one reliable source specifically referring to it as an urban legend. The sources presently being cited don't do that, they merely hype the horror aspect. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Your assumptions are against policy established by Wikipedia". Well, the policy I quoted was WP:FRINGE. You don't seem to have quoted any Wikipedia policy, and indeed have a somewhat fanciful idea of what policies actually entail. The sources you gave don't really pass WP:RS. The third source is not a credible piece of journalism. Rather it seems to be a human interest puff piece (see WP:NEWSORG for a description of what "news" is). I am unable to view the Travel Channel thing because the website is riddled with malware. Reliable sources are things like academic papers, news reports by news outlets with a reputation for fact checking (here by "news report", we mean a story in which eyewitnesses and credentialed experts are interviewed), books published by reliable publishing houses, and so forth. Generally speaking, random garbage you find on the internet is not reliable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. Arbitrarily tossing out WP:FRINGE is not conducive nor neutral in any way. Fringe does not apply in this case, this is not a fringe topic as much as popular culture urban legend similar to the falsified Jenkem craze or the Boogeyman. Suggesting that International Business Times, AOL, and the Travel Channel is not reliable, mainstream, or fact checked is absurd. What is documented here is a notable urban legend not a fringe theory and I have corrected the article to reflect so. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these sources reliable? Find it in policy, then we can talk. But so far you're just contradicting policy-based reasons given for rejecting those sources as unreliable. Not exactly compelling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBT, AOL, and Travel Channel articles are subject to peer review same as New York Times, LA Times, and other major publications. These are major mainstream secondary sources (not in weird news section) your claims that they are unreliable are complete unfounded. Any personal dislike for the subject is not justified here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about personal like or dislike. The sources you have suggested treat the story of the doll as factual, or simply repeat claims of Ed and Lorraine Warren uncritically. If we have to cite credulous coverage and put "allegedly" in front of every sentence, it's clear that an objective article can't be written. Are there any reliable sources that specifically identify the doll as a notable "urban legend"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting any myth which has not been studied by skeptics can not be notable? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources that call the doll a "myth"? A legend? A folklore? A widely held but false belief or idea? If so, they should be included in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply makes it clear that you haven't read the WP:NEWSORG guideline. While news reporting from such outlets is generally reliable, not every bit of content published even by the New York Times is a reliable source for factual content in an encyclopedia. There is a huge gap between news reporting conducted by these sources and fluff human interest stories. I do not understand your apparent unwillingness to understand that there is a difference. You cannot seriously believe that the IBT source stating as fact that the doll moved on its own and murdered people is as reliable as news reporting by the New York Times. And the closing administrator will also not lend much credence to such blatantly ridiculous comparisons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main focus of this AfD is notability, we are setting a dangerous precedence by suggesting certain topics such as this can never be notable due to inherent disbelief. Sources such as OpEDNews or Perez Hilton may cause issues when establishing notability, but these are not the sources cited in this article. Of course there is a notable difference between news reporting and fluff human interest stories, by suggesting that the ladder can not be notable is contradictory to the foundation of this encyclopedia. We are looking at significant coverage from sources such as IBT and AOL which are subject to peer review and editorial oversight, thus reliable per WP:NEWSORG. The difference between and murder and an alleged doll moving on its own is obvious, but to suggest this article is not notable due its subject contradicts established policy. It is perfectly acceptable to use biased sources as long as the article we write is neutral. And for the record no I do not believe the doll moved on its own, but this people interviewed certainly did. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one but you suggested anything to do with "distaste", and here is the "dangerous precedent" you seek. Where in WP:NEWSORG does is say that any source that is "subject to peer review and editorial oversight, [is] reliable per WP:NEWSORG"? The version of WP:NEWSORG that I am looking at doesn't actually discuss peer review. Peer review is generally understood to do with scholarship in a subject. I don't think you really mean to claim that the sources you have presented represent serious peer-reviewed scholarship, but if you are claiming that, then you are wrong (and probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia).

Secondly, WP:NEWSORG is also not about whether content is the subject of editorial oversight. Here is what NEWSORG actually says (I've quoted it at length, since your reference to both peer review and editorial oversight suggest that you haven't actually read it):

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[6] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.

Simply put, while news agencies are generally reliable factual sources for news, they are not generally reliable for other things. The articles you have cited fall firmly into the other things category. In fact, it's rather easy to see this by a simple reductio ad absurdum. If we were to write an article based on your belief that the IBT piece is a reliable source for factual content (as you continue to maintain), then we must present, as a fact, that the doll moved on its own, etc. We cannot in Wikipedia's voice, call into question these facts that an ostensibly reliable source presents. You cannot have it both ways. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment only emphasize the exact situation presented. Major news publications are suddenly deemed unreliable due to the subject in question. Suggesting that IBT and AOL as unreliable due to lack of scholarly review does not show lack of notability. Its has been long standing that WP:RS and WP:GNG accepts mainstream news outlets as reliable. IBT and AOL is near the same quality as NYT or LAT. There are tons of other sources which I have yet to post including two published books because the current sources alone is enough to establish notability of Annabelle. We look for subjects that generate lasting impact and/or received significant coverage, do we not? A bit of discretion is required, this doll has been the subject of not one, but two mainstream major motion picture blockbusters, generating over $550 million in gross revenue, with the sources established within the article it is sufficient to say this doll has a lasting impact. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bit of notability about this. It was featured in a prominent book The Demonologist: The Extraordinary Career of Ed and Lorraine Warren. I would oppose merging it into into the movie article, since it has somewhat of a separate history from the film.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just added three more sources just to put the icing on top. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy reason to delete it. I'd say it might be worth merging but since there's multiple potential merge targets it's probably best off staying as an article. Artw (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have now an abundance of credulous sources (mostly so-called "entertainment news" that actually concern the film) and a total absence of sceptical fact-based ones. So it does not seem to be possible to have an article that conforms to WP:NPOV. The cited sources also have WP:V/WP:RS issues. For example, the main source, cited a total of nine times, is the International Business Times piece, which states factually that the doll could move on its own, that it wrote messages, and that it attacked people. The Glamour article repeats the same set of claims. Although editors expressing an interest in keeping the article are apparently willing to blur the line between "factual" sources and... whatever it is the article is currently citing, this is not reliable sourcing for an encyclopedia. Entertainment/tabloid news, for an article of this kind, is not considered to be reliable sourcing per WP:NEWSORG and WP:SENSATION. I referred above to a "reductio ad absurdum" if we were to write the article based on assuming that these sources are factual. Well it now seems that the absurdum has been reductio'ed. We have an article that claims, as fact, that a doll attacked and killed people, that it levitated, etc. I also referred above to WP:FRINGE. Sources in entertainment news are not the kind of sources that would apply to WP:NFRINGE, which demands serious coverage by reliable sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't do we now? We have an article that claims Ed and Lorraine Warren alleges this doll killed people. WP:NEWSORG does not apply as the source quality is high, WP:SENSATION also does not apply because this is not yellow page or tabloid sources. What we have is an editor blatantly showing bias in the form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then finding every possible excuse to removed an article which clearly passes WWP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming tiresome. You don't get to pick and choose which policies apply and which do not. Those are decided by community consensus, not the imperious whims of an editor who (apparently) hasn't even read the guidelines he cites. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, for example, says "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance." I have quoted a number of guidelines, and cited a number of policies, arguing that those do apply. You may disagree with my reasons, but you need to articulate clearly why you disagree with them. They cannot just be written off en masse as falling under IDONTLIKEIT, because that is not the right guideline. Whether one of us "likes" the article or not should be irrelevant for the substance of the discussion. Inclusion is based on the strength of the arguments for and against, not whether someone "likes" the content. And in a deletion debate, you need to address the substance of the arguments, which you seem totally unable to do.

For example, you seem to believe that WP:GNG creates an ironclad guarantee of inclusion. It does not. For one thing, that guideline requires reliable sourcing which, I have argued, is not the case for the subject in question. The guideline further states: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." In this case, my deletion vote argues that the lack of balancing factual sources renders impossible a standalone article compliant with the WP:NPOV policy. This is elaborated upon at WP:NFRINGE.

Finally, to respond to the claim that "WP:SENSATION... does not apply". The Glamour article contains the following paragraph:

Here are the real-life details, according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk). Annabelle is a vintage Raggedy Ann doll purchased in 1970 by a mother for her daughter Donna's 28th birthday. The doll began to move around Donna's apartment and leave messages for her on parchment, which Donna did not own. Donna first contacted a medium about the doll, who told her it was inhabited by the spirit of a seven-year-old girl named Annabelle Higgins. After the doll tried to strangle and attack Donna's friend Lou, she turned to the Warrens for help. The Warrens informed Donna that Annabelle was actually inhabited by an inhuman, demon spirit. They then held an exorcism for the doll and removed it from her home. The exorcism did not take, though, and the Warrens' power steering and brakes failed during their drive home with the doll in the car. The Warrens' had a special case built for the doll in their Occult Museum, since it escaped several locks in its first few weeks at their house. Of all the items in the museum, Spera claims that the doll is what he is most frightened of. Visitors to the museum who taunted the doll were all involved in near-fatal or fatal accidents upon leaving the Warrens.

I don't think that any reasonable editor can believe that sources like this pass any kind of standard of reliability for use in an encyclopedia, and no amount of wikilawyering over the exact meaning of "tabloid" at WP:SENSATION will ever transmute paragraphs like this into reliable encyclopedic references. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opening line of WP:SENSATION states "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting" these sources include National Enquirer, Globe, or The Sun and others. The sources we have provided include published books, Yahoo News, IBT, USA Today, AOL News, and Travel Channel, which are sources generally considered reliable. All these sources state the same thing which in itself, is a sign of notability. The second argument you have used is NFRINGE which states "For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it appears this has and passes NFRINGE. It hard to appear neutral when you have selected one or two sources you do not like and use only those to discredit the article as a whole. You need to go through at least 11 of the 13 sources and prove each source is unreliable by comparing it to other articles whose sources you deem reliable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. All of the sources are sensationalistic. WP:SENSATION is not limited to tabloid media. Since most of the article is based in the International Business Times reference, I focused on that one. The Glamour article has similar claims, as does the Yahoo News article, etc. (The USA Today piece is about the film. And I'm not willing to grant that The Travel Channel is "generally a reliable source", unless you can point to a black-letter policy note to that effect. If you want to identify one source as unquestionably reliable, then we can talk about that one instead.)

Perhaps you could answer flat out the following question, instead of continuing to advance these non-arguments. The IBT article presence "9 Freaky Facts". Among these facts are statements like: "It Could Move On Its Own", "...And Write Messages", and "While searching the home for a possible break in, he felt a presence behind him and was soon after cut and left with '7 distinct claw marks' on his chest. The scratches, despite causing him to double over in pain, healed almost immediately." My question to you: since you seem to hold the journalistic standards of the International Business Times as beyond reproach, are these reliable statements of fact? Have they been held to similar standards of fact-checking as, say, this article in the New York Times concerning the Netanyahu West Bank settlements? (You earlier invited a comparison to the news portion of the New York Times). If so, then I think that answer speaks for itself. If not, how do you assess the reliability of such sources in the light of the demands of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and most specifically how do you justify the use of substandard sources in light of the WP:REDFLAG claims that appear there? Please refer to actual, black-letter, policy. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman, where it was unsuccessfully argued that an article should exist because the topic got a lot of press. Although sensational claims about the subject were carried by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable", those claims had not generated the required sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Notability#Events, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Annabelle (film) to delete. I was going to nominate this article for deletion months ago, but I figured that it would be like tilting at windmills. Yes, it has citations, and some of them go to questionably reliable sources, but this is way too fringe. From my understanding, "News of the Weird"-style press is never considered reliable or enough to establish notability by itself. My first choice is actually deletion, but I'll quite happily settle for redirection if it helps to reach consensus; in fact, I suspect that most people (who oppose keeping it, that is) will probably prefer a merge or redirection over deletion. These kinds of creepy urban legends would be better documented on a Wikia wiki than here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we redirect with the existence of reliable sources. Kept in mind this doll was the basis for two major motion pictures and is not a BLP. I've made a userification request for Boyd Bushman to compare the sources. We can not deny the reliability of these major publications. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 10:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle does not compare to Boyd Bushman. Bushman's impact was generate by news and falls under WP:ONEEVENT. This doll has received significantly more coverage. The doll was the basis for two major motion pictures generating $550 million in gross revenue with a sequel to come. The sources are not from the silly season of news, but of mainstream coverage due to the lasting impact generated. This story is comparable more to that of Keyser Soze and has received the same coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT (or more accurately, Wikipedia:Notability#Events) also applies to Annabelle. The majority of the press and media have occurred around some key dates: October 2014 (the film's theatrical release date), January 2015 (the film's DVD release date) and March 2015 (the film's streaming availability date). What you are seeing is publicity and promotion at work, not lasting impact. Sorry. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I was asked to participate in this discussion via a note on my talk page, so the closer will need to decide how what I have to say interacts with WP:CANVASS. Valoem has invited me (and, as far as I can tell, only me) to offer a view on this debate; I don't really know Valoem and I don't understand his reasons for picking me out of the crowd, but OK, here I am.
I would recommend a keep outcome here. The glamour source and the yahoo source are very clearly about the doll. They aren't about the film. This isn't a subtle or fine distinction: it's quite blatant and obvious. The doll is, without doubt, notable.
As editor colleagues above have rightly pointed out, some of the claims the sources make about this doll are utterly preposterous. That does not mean we should delete the article, though. Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, has an educational purpose. I mean, we're not snopes, but when it comes to notable false/hoax content, it's right that we cover it. That's why we have articles about bigfoot or the moon landing conspiracy theories, for example.—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison with fringe theories like bigfoot and moon landing conspiracies that have been subject to extensive critical analysis. The problem is not that there are a few sources that make outlandish claims. The problem is that all of the sources appear to make such claims. So we cannot have an article that simultaneously meets WP:V (that is, including relevant "facts" from the sources), WP:NPOV (I'm not even sure home that would look - inserting "allegedly" before every reputed "fact" sourced to some sensationalist puff-piece) and WP:NOR (in order to satisfy NPOV, we would need to undermine the factual claims given in the only sources we have). As I pointed out above, WP:NFRINGE gives some further context. That notability criterion is almost tailor-made for precisely such a quandry. And this doll clearly does not meet that notability criterion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<ec> That's correct, notable false/hoax content is rightly covered in standalone articles. Bigfoot and Moon landing conspiracy theories are notable because much perspective by scientists and experts opposing the fringe claims has been published. Not so with the Annabelle doll. Credulous stories designed to hype the subject of a horror movie at key release dates is really all we have at this point. It's not enough for an objective stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, look, this allegation that it's not notable is wrong, and it's a symptom of a serious and growing problem that we have with the encyclopaedia.
Our notability rule is very old and very simple. If it has significant (more than a couple of paragraphs) coverage in reliable sources (note plural) then it's notable. If it doesn't then it isn't. This rule is simple and simplistic and it leads to simple and simplistic outcomes, and I understand why some editors want something more subtle and nuanced ---- but there are really good reasons why it has to be simple. You see, there wouldn't be much point going through the effort of researching and writing an article if people could come along and randomly delete it, would there? So we have to have simple, clear rules that are consistently enforced. That's what enables people to write content without going through a committee process first.
This is why it's so important to stick rigidly to the WP:GNG even when it gives outcomes that might seem anomalous, such as in this case. It will certainly take careful thought and good editorial judgment to keep the article on the right side of WP:FRINGE. But it's a much more serious mistake to delete an article on a notable topic, or to try to re-define notability so it means something other than significant coverage in reliable sources.
It's not permitted for Wikipedia editors to include material because they think it's true. Verifiability, not truth. The counterpart to that is that it's not permitted for Wikipedia editors to exclude material because they think it's false. Although I'm confident that this material is false, it's right that we cover it. However, I see it as important that we don't ever report it in Wikipedia's voice ---- the article will need lots of "according to (source)"-type hedging phrases.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the comments at this AfD, I don't see that editors who oppose a standalone article are doing so because they don't understand policy or out of prejudice for the topic. They are saying the topic has not generated the quality of coverage that's required for a standalone article. In unanimously suggesting a redirect or merge to a suitable target article, they are saying the topic has just enough notability to be covered by an existing article, but falls short of the serious and in-depth coverage needed for a standalone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just astonished that anyone would actually believe that the sources being used are reliable for an encyclopedia article. This flies in the face of multiple guidelines, and it disconnects fundamentally with the notion that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia rather than a tabloid in the style of the National Enquirer. I think I have already given good reasons against GNG in this case. That criterion indicates that coverage in reliable sources creates a presumption, not a guarantee. We don't have reliable sources, and the NFRINGE guideline is clear. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie, the amount of coverage needed for a standalone article is well-established and clearly defined in the GNG. This argument was fully played out and reached encyclopaedia-wide consensus after a huge argument in about 2006-7 and with all due respect, it's not for you to overrule it. Slawomir Bialy's argument doesn't seem to me to apply to the two sources I'm talking about ---- this one and this one. Neither of them attribute any supernatural powers to the doll. These aren't fringe sources, they're published articles by named journalists working for recognised publications. The contention that their content is unreliable simply does not withstand investigation.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the Glamour article at length above. This article definitely does sensationalistically attribute supernatural powers to the doll. The Yahoo News article is an interview with a psychic medium. Your defense of these as reliable FRIND sources "simply does not withstand investigation". Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo news article is an interview with Lorraine Warren. She does describe herself as a medium and the Yahoo source reports this, but the reason why it's interviewing her is because she and her husband Ed did the original "investigation". I use quotes because I don't doubt that this "investigation" was somewhat lacking in scientific rigour. The Glamour article reports supernatural claims without endorsing them, hence the phrase "according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk)". It's clear to me that the journalist doesn't really believe these claims, but enjoys the creepy story being related.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the Warrens have the museum, so no, not FRIND at all. The Glamour article describes the supernatural claims as "Real life facts". It's good that you think that the journalist doesn't "really believe these claims". Describing things as "facts", but not really believing them, and rather "enjoy[ing] the creepy story being related" is very nice for tabloids. But these are not hallmarks of reliable sources. (WP:TABLOID, WP:NEWSORG, WP:NFRINGE) Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd invite you to read the guidelines you cite. To the extent that they're relevant, they support my position rather than yours. WP:TABLOID is about breaking stories, routine news on celebrities or sports, so it's not actually relevant in this case. It certainly doesn't say "If the statement appears in a tabloid, delete the article." WP:NEWSORG is more relevant. It says "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", which is the approach I've suggested above. It certainly doesn't say "if the statement is not authoritative, delete the article". WP:NFRINGE is also relevant. It says "To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia." This is just reprinting the GNG, which is the approach I've advocated all along. Basically, the authorities you're appealing to don't say what you want them to say.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a dishonest distortion, both of my arguments, and of policy itself, and it really needs to stop. Nowhere did I say that these guidelines said "If the statement appears in a tabloid, delete the article". Rather, I said that WP:GNG requires reliable sources. That policy helpfully includes a link to WP:RS. So, let's follow that link to see if the sources cited are reliable. Doing so, we find the most relevant information at WP:NEWSORG. I quoted that guideline at length above, but the key part is "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So according to that, the sources we have here are not reliable, except as primary sources. I did not link to WP:TABLOID. I linked to WP:SENSATION, which elaborates on the point made a propos of NEWSORG, saying "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." Regarding my use of the English word "tabloid" in the argument, yes I certainly implied that the standards of verifiability are greater for Wikipedia than a tabloid, and I hope you agree with this, but I did not link to the policy as you have done.

Also, perhaps you yourself were inattentive in reading the same guidelines that you now suggest that I should read. The very WP:NFRINGE guideline that you quoted in brief, contains the following, at length:

A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as "News of the Weird", or during "slow news days" (see junk food news and silly season).

The sources currently in the article are of the kind described in the last sentence, not "serious and reliable" sources.

I think the difference between our perspectives is best summarized in the question: "Do policy nuances matter?" You believe not, that if there are sources (irrespective of their quality), then GNG says the subject is notable enough for an article. I believe that nuances do matter: in order to have an article, we need sources of a certain quality. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. But let's not have any more dishonest strawman-style arguments, ok? It's just unbecoming. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rather take exception to being called "dishonest". Your position is that the article should be deleted, and as far as I can see the rules you cite don't support its deletion.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not sure whether S Marshall would favor in Keep or Delete, but he is someone I've met in DRV whose judgment I trust. I've left purely neutral message on his talk page just avoid any possible controversy. Since the Bushman article was brought into this discussion I had it userfied to compare the sources.

The sources in the Annabelle article are vastly stronger. Bushman's article used NYDailyNews and Youtube VS. Yahoo News, USA Today, and IBT in this article. The only reliable sources are possibly mysanantonio and maybe http://www.tvqc.com/, but I am not sure even about those sources. To compare a doll which inspired two multi-million grossing blockbusters with solid sources to the Bushman's article is ridiculous. In fact the sources you mentioned (by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable") are vastly stronger yet none of these were posted in the discussion so I am fine with Randykitty's close, though given these new sources a DRV maybe in contention. Also at the time Bushman's article was a BLP and thus not comparable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:07, 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 // 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In addition to the sources provided above, here is another source about the doll:
1. Lawler, Christa (2014-10-30). "Cloquet native designed doll at heart of horror film 'Annabelle'". Duluth News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2015-03-17. Retrieved 2015-03-17. (subscription required)
  The article notes:
  She's got wheat-colored braids with red bows, round rosy cheeks and big eyes. She's child-sized and wears a long white dress.
  She could be a collectible, the centerpiece of a doll shelf. Instead, she is possessed and viewers are only really safe, well safe-ish, when she's enclosed in glass and blessed monthly by a Catholic priest.
  She is the doll at the center of this season's it-flick and the creation of a locally raised special-effects professional whose niche is creepy props. Tony Rosen, originally from Cloquet, designed and built the demonic vessel that tortures a young couple in "Annabelle."
  ...
  Annabelle was sculpted in clay, molded and cast in plastic. The mouth and eyes move in "The Conjuring," but not in "Annabelle" which was directed by John Leonetti, the cinematographer from "The Conjuring."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Annabelle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a story about the prop used in the movie. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I withdraw that source, though it could be useful in the film's article. I think this article from Glamour and this article from Yahoo! Movies provide the "significant coverage in reliable sources" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first states as a fact that the doll attacked someone, that it could move and write messages. The second one is an interview with a psychic medium who owns a museum containing the doll. I find it rather curious that someone would claim that either of these is a reliable source. What, exactly, does "reliable source" mean? Is anything one finds on the web a "reliable source"? Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source does not state as fact that the doll attacked someone. Instead, it prefaces that with:

Here are the real-life details, according to the New Haven Register and the Warrens' own website (visit at your own risk).

It is describing what the the Warrens say happened "in real life". The doll is given nearly three pages of coverage in this book:

Graham, Stacey (2014). Haunted Stuff: Demonic Dolls, Screaming Skulls & Other Creepy Collectibles. Woodbury, Minnesota: Llewellyn Worldwide. pp. 29–32. ISBN 0738741116. Retrieved 2015-03-18.

Here are other sources:

McLoughlin, Pam (2014-10-04). "Real 'Annabelle' story shared by Lorraine Warren at Milford's Lauralton Hall". New Haven Register. Archived from the original on 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-03-18.
The article notes:
The real Annabelle doll lives in a locked box at Warren's Occult Museum at her Monroe home.
The doll in the movie is a frightening looking porcelain doll in a child's image, with long hair and the real Annabelle — the one in Warren's museum — is a plain-looking classic Raggedy Ann doll with red yarn for hair.
But the Raggedy Ann at the Warren's Museum is no ordinary doll. According to the Warrens, it is inhabited by an "inhuman spirit," and there is a warning on the glass case not to touch.
One museum-goer who ignored the warnings and taunted the doll, died in a motorcycle crash shortly after being told to leave the museum.
Sutton, Sasha (2014-10-13). "The Real Annabelle Doll Locked Away In A US Occult Museum". Neon Nettle. Archived from the original on 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-03-18.
The article notes:
Yes, the doll is real and the story for the prequel to the 2013 movie ‘The Conjuring’ is far more frightening than the film portrays. After Child’s Play’s Chucky doll based on the real-life Robert the Doll and his reputation of being possessed by spirits, comes another account of terrifying toys and occult occurrences in 2014’s Annabelle. Paranormal investigators Lorraine Warren and her late husband Ed were called in after a birthday gift turned into a demonic enemy, inspiring James Wan’s blockbuster and the latest instalment directed by John R. Leonetti.
...
More paranormal activity occurred when the doll seemed bring gifts to the female students, and in one frightening event even appeared to be covered in blood. That was when Donna and Angie decided to call on the help of a medium, who revealed to them that the spirit of a seven-year-old girl called Annabelle Higgins, whose body was discovered in the field where the apartment complex had been constructed. Feeling compassion for the lost soul of the child, the flatmates allowed the doll and spirit to stay in the home, as ‘all Annabelle wanted was to be loved’.
The publication has editorial oversight according to http://www.neonnettle.com/contact.
Miller, Gregory E. (2014-09-27). "Meet Annabelle, the big screen's newest terrifying doll". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2015-03-18. Retrieved 2015-03-18.
The article notes:
The real Annabelle — actually a Raggedy Ann doll — was bought in 1970 and supposedly terrorized a family, who later called in the Warrens for help. (They’ve chosen to remain anonymous all these years.) They claimed that the toy moved around the house when they weren’t there and left notes such as “Help Us” — and that she once allegedly attacked a family friend. The original doll, which has since been exorcised, can now be seen on display at the Warrens’ Occult Museum in Monroe, Conn.

Cunard (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the IBT article is "9 freaky facts". The article states that these are real life details. From our WP:NEWSORG guideline: '"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).' Do you disagree that this source is a reliable source for the statements of fact that the doll moved on its own, wrote messages, and attacked someone? If, instead, you believe that this sources is only reliable as primary sources for the opinions of the Warrens, then it is not WP:FRIND. So, either way, the demand for independent reliable sources is clearly not met there.

The book you cited also says, as a fact, that the doll left messages around the apartment. That Lou was given seven scratches that healed immediately. Is this a reliable source for factual content in an encyclopedia article?

The New Haven Register contains the following statements of fact:

" She put the rag doll on her bed and began to notice it changing positions. A leg would be crossed, or the doll would be lying on its side. Then the girl and her roommate began to find parchment paper on the floor with written messages, such as, “Help me, help us.” They had no parchment paper in the house. The doll began appearing in different rooms and at one point appeared to be leaking blood. Then, one day, a male friend was taking a nap and woke up with the doll staring at him, as he felt like he was being strangled. There were deep scratch wounds on his upper body."

Do you believe that this is a reliable source for statements of fact, and that an encyclopedia article should be based on the facts presented in such a source?

You seem to think that the Neon Nettle source is a particularly reliable source for factual content on an encyclopedia, because you indicate that there is a link to editorial oversight. If so, do you then agree that the facts as presented in that article? "[T]he doll even started to change rooms", "suspicious notes etched on strips parchment began appearing around the apartment, written in the handwriting of a small child", "More paranormal activity occurred when the doll seemed bring gifts to the female students, and in one frightening event even appeared to be covered in blood", "The next day, looking around the bedroom for signs of forced entry, Lou was attacked again after feeling an eerie presence behind him". Should Wikipedia articles be based on such factual statements? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film (maybe selectively merge; otherwise delete) - although I am convinced that this passes GNG, just as other bollocks like 2012_phenomenon although maybe by a smaller margin, the lack of any critical source whatsoever (unlike for the 2012 thing) makes it impossible to write a serious article without doing original research (and yes, claiming that "dolls don't move, idiot" inside the article would be original research). It is very clear that putting everything in conditional form (WP:ALLEGED) does not change that.

Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules, only guidelines, to avoid getting stuck in esoteric wikilawyering discussions when the issue at hand is clear to any child that has not learnt the guidelines. Here, it is very clear that since:

All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant)
WP:OR should be followed here;
Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR;

... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found. Tigraan (talk) 10:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, your saying that the doll has enough reliable sources and coverage to pass WP:GNG, but we should ignore all rules and have this redirected? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit misleading to put it this way. I do not think the sources are "reliable" in the usual sense of the word, and that's the core of my argument; but I do think they establish notability.

The main debate in the previous comments seems to be disagreement over whether GNG is a sufficient or necessary condition for inclusion. My argument is: who cares? Ignore the letter of WP:GNG (which is, yes, IAR), because the spirit of WP:NPOV is a more important thing to follow. (I am not saying GNG is less important that NPOV; I am saying the letter of GNG is less important than the spirit of NPOV). Tigraan (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much opposed to using IAR to remove notable content. The point of the general notability guideline ---- the reason why it's worked so well for us ---- is that anyone can determine for themselves whether there's more than one reliable source. They don't have to get into discussions with other people about whether it's appropriate for them to write a particular article, they can just go ahead and do it. That only works if they can have confidence in the GNG. If we start using IAR to get rid of articles that do pass the GNG, then content writers will lose that confidence and the content creation process will slow down accordingly. This business of deleting content that passes the GNG has been happening more and more in recent years and I think it's connected to the dropoff in rates of content creation and the dropoff in numbers of active editors, so I'm determined to resist it.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of a deletion discussion what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT? Artw (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons that should be obvious to anyone discussing on good faith, who has read this deletions rationale and WP:IAR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. These are light years apart. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something. You're ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like bit it's not IDONTLIKEIT because...? Artw (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You're ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like bit it's not IDONTLIKEIT because..." The reasons articulated in the original rationale are that an article conforming to our pillars is not possible because of the lack of reliable, verifiable sources. I might be missing the part of WP:IDONTLIKEIT that says that we can dismiss any argument just because we disagree with it, but that seems to be how that guideline is being used in this deletion discussion. If you want to respond substantively to the comments raised, please do so. But pointing out that GNG is not some sort of magical armor that can be conjured forth by the unthinking mobs with the incantation "GNG, teh sources derp" is very different from "ignoring all the rules to get rid of an article you don't like". Content that cannot conform to our pillars should not be on Wikipedia. One would hope this would be something that we all should be able to agree to, but apparently not. In fact, weirdly anyone in this discussion even mentioning the WP:PILLARS is immediately labelled a heretic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which pillar are you attempting to support here? Artw (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's two pillars referred to explicitly in the original post, that you accused of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I leave it as an exercise to find them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not following you. If there's some gross violation of Wikipedia's core guidelines going on here why would you need to invoke IAR in order to deal with it? It just seems like a silly handwave to cover up not having a real deletion argument. Artw (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I probably need to DFTT this one, since I'm not sure what your game is, but here goes. Here is a quotation of the argument you are replying to: "Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules, only guidelines, to avoid getting stuck in esoteric wikilawyering discussions when the issue at hand is clear to any child that has not learnt the guidelines. Here, it is very clear that since: All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant), WP:OR should be followed here, Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR, ... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found." (I have helpfully provided some clues to the invocation of the pillars. Policies like WP:OR are also mentioned rather prominently, but I expect you can find those for yourself.) You have compared this argument to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which says "Content on Wikipedia is judged based on its compliance with guidelines, not its physical appearance. Once you can make all the content comply, you can then work with that and tidy it up." Yet it is precisely "compliance with the guidelines" that the argument concerns. You can question the substance of those reasons, but IAR was only invoked to get past all of the GNG stuff. We do have other guidelines that articles must follow. In fact, that is linked in the very WP:IDONTLIKEIT guideline that you pointed us to! Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that IAR is a useful deletion rationale and feel that it particularly isn't in this case. Any deletion vote not supported by proper reasoning should probably be disregarded by the closer. Artw (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is not the deletion rationale. The deletion rationale is the bit after "Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules..." You have offered zero explanation why what follows that sentence is not "proper reasoning". The reasoning is quite clear, rooted both in policy and pillars. You might disagree with that reasoning. But the onus is on you to say why, not to dismiss it for on specious grounds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your deletion rationale doesn't involve IAR you could probably have saved a lot if confusion by not mentioning it. Artw (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... My deletion rationale did not mention IAR. You must have me confused with someone else. You responded to this edit of Tigraan's with this remark, that showed no sign of having even read the post that it was in response to. In fact, you still don't seem to have read it, despite having replied to it in the first place, and then having it repeated back to you. Now, somehow it's my responsibility for not making the original rationale clearer? At what point do you bear any responsibility to read the bloody thing you're replying to? You can't even get the damned author right! I'm at this point rather sure you're trolling. Either that or you need to come back once you've sobered up. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It is Tigraan who should probably have left their deletion rational as a straight OR one and not invoked IAR. Why you've leapt in to so passionately defend the use of IAR in deletions I have no idea. Artw (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my last post, where I said this: "The deletion rationale is the bit after 'Rather than wikilawyering about the precise meaning of GNG, I would invoke WP:IAR which states that there are no rules...' You have offered zero explanation why what follows that sentence is not "proper reasoning". The reasoning is quite clear, rooted both in policy and pillars. You might disagree with that reasoning. But the onus is on you to say why, not to dismiss it for on specious grounds."

I am not "defending the use of IAR as a deletion rationale" because that was not the deletion rationale given. In fact, here (for the second time in this thread) I will helpfully reiterate the deletion rationale that is under discussion once again: "Here, it is very clear that since: All sources are biased toward the paranormal POV (whether they really believe it or write it for bait-and-click is irrelevant), WP:OR should be followed here, Saying something that the sources do not say is WP:OR, ... it necessarily follows that the article is going to be POV until and unless a critical source is found." I am defending this as a valid perspective on guidelines and policy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking IAR to declare it OR or in violation of any other rule, policy or guideline is nonsensical. Stripped of IAR it's merely a OR argument I don't particularly buy. Artw (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed not to "buy" it. But you're not really allowed to dismiss it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That was wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of a deletion discussion what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT? - seems a pretty reasonable supposition to me. And if it's not IAR, then this long super indented conversation is a waste of everyone's time. Artw (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it is not really a "reasonable supposition". WP:IAR is a pillar of Wikipedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a small part of an essay, that is not even relevant here. The reason for deletion was not "Delete, IAR". This is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension. I repeated the original rationale twice, and explained the manner in which IAR was invoked. I repeated one of my replies a second time, because you apparently hadn't understood it the first time. That should be more than enough. Yet, here you go again: "what distinguishes IAR from IDONTLIKEIT, derp?" Well, read the damned thread. We're done here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony, I brought up IAR precisely to deter a super-long conversation on GNG, and we got a super-long conversation on IAR.

Just to reformulate my position in case it is better understood, I am not claiming "IAR is a reason for deletion" (which would be not even an argument). I am claiming IAR offers a solution to the conflict I perceive between three important policies, which are (summarized):

GNG which means this should be covered, because it is definitely notable;
OR which means we should not add stuff that is not in the sources;
NPOV (and possibly FRINGE, but ironically, the fringe view in the sources seems to be that dolls don't kill people) which means we should not give undue weight to paranormal views.

These are only in conflict because there is a problem with the sources. I see no way to write an article that does not directly contradict any of those three guidelines, and I prefer to sacrifice GNG in this particular instance because it is better to be silent that to speak BS. If someone sees the third way, please be WP:BOLD.

@S Marshall: I am very much opposed to IAR to remove notable content. I am also very much opposed to IAR to leave POV content. Basically, I am opposed to IAR as the sole or main justification for anything; but what are we supposed to do here? Do you disagree with my analysis that there is a conflict of policies, or do you think GNG should not be the weak link? Tigraan (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that if there's an unresolvable conflict between NPOV and the GNG, NPOV has to prevail. Notability is a guideline and NPOV is core policy. If I thought it was impossible to write an NPOV article then I would be advocating a redirect outcome (but not delete). I think it ought to be possible, with care, to write a NPOV article about this.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit by Sławomir Biały AGF?[edit]

Sławomir is changing the revisions here. I believe version written here to be most acceptable per NPOV, sensationalism has been reduced. When building an encyclopedia we use discretion with the content we put in. It is perfectly acceptable to use biased sources as long as the article we write is neutral. We try to reduce sensational claims to ensure NPOV is established. An editor with your knowledge should know this, which I why I cannot understand why you are adding sensational claims and then using those claims as rational for delete. I hope other editors can compare the two versions and revert if necessary. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and others have defended the sources used in the article as serious, reliable, fact-checked sources. You yourself invited a comparison of the sources in the article with the news portion of the New York Times. When a news item there states a fact, we repeat that fact in the encyclopedia, with a citation. That is what it means to be a reliable source: we are relying on that source for our facts. Rather crudely, an encyclopedia is an organized collection of facts.

Yet now we are being told that these sources may not be so reliable after all. Instead, that they are biased sources. I can appreciate that perspective, but it does rather change the nature of the conversation in regards to the article (assuming that we all agree, which is not quite clear). The first question we should ask is, "What is the bias?" If we cannot identify what that bias is, then we cannot hope to curate a place for such content in an encyclopedia. Given the monoculture of opinion presented in those sources, we cannot hope to create an article by balancing one set of "facts" against another, in a sort of he-said-she-said parity (not that this would necessarily be a good idea anyway). Rather, the only option down this road is to observe that each and every source is solely based on the testimony of Lorraine Warren (hardly a neutral party in this). So really these are only primary sources for the opinions of Lorraine Warren. In that case, the nature of the question then becomes: Are the opinions of Lorraine Warren notable enough for a stand-alone article? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather others chime in and see if what your doing is considered disruptive. Especially given the fact you are doing this in the middle of an AfD, rather than request for comment afterwards. We use multiple source and write the most neutral version given the sources. In fact we can even use WP:PRIMARY source with discretion, but never to establish notability. It is rather obvious you do not support the revision you made, so why do it? This kind of aggressive behavior could lead to an ANI, FYI. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should have a discussion in good faith about the sources. That seems like it would be a much more productive expenditure of time than going to ANI, which would indeed be a great disruption. The keep votes have systematically defended the reliability of the sources used in the article. Assuming that we mean the same thing by "reliable source", namely a source that can be relied upon for factual content in an encyclopedia, then the article should factually report what is in those sources. If we mean something different by "reliable sources", then that changes the discussion. Here I feel like you are asking me to believe two contradictory things: (1) that the sensationalist sources are reliable, and held up to the same set of journalistic standards as newswire reports from outfits like the New York Times, but yet (2) the sources really are not reliable, being biased towards a sensationalist/supernaturalist point of view. These are two mutually incompatible possibilities. If the sources are reliable, then the article must be written from those sources. If not, then attestations that the GNG applies are wholly without merit, as that guideline specifically emphasizes that it is coverage in reliable sources that creates a presumption of notability. This does not, in itself, mean that the article should be deleted. But the question becomes much more nuanced then. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If IBT's source is an issue we can remove the source, though I generally have an issue with sources subject editorial review deemed unreliable. Sources can always be improved, but this does not deny the notability of the subject in question. It never has and cleanup is rarely grounds for deletion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources can always be improved"—this statement assumes that better sources exist. What is the basis for this presumption. "I generally have an issue with sources subject editorial review deemed unreliable"—your attitude here and at Talk:Annabelle (doll) appears to be inconsistent with being able to rely on these sources for making factual statements. So, I wonder what you mean by "reliable sources". It cannot be the same thing that I am thinking of. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an interesting post that could spawn a productive discussion. "A source that can be relied upon for factual content in an encyclopedia." That's well-phrased, and I'd like to agree, but I think it's subtler than that. I certainly think evaluating sources in this way is the most important job an encyclopaedia editor can do. I also think it's rare to come across a 100% reliable source, and there are relatively few sources that are 0% reliable as well.
Taking for example the yahoo source, some people might say "interview, so primary source, so inadmissible". In fact the true case is that it's basically an interview but does contain some background and narrative related directly by the journalist to the reader, so it's a primary source with secondary source elements, and how reliable it is depends on what sentence it's being used to support. For example, I would not be comfortable relying on that source to say "The doll moves around". But I would absolutely rely on it to say "Lorraine Warren has claimed that the doll had moved around in her apartment." In other words, I think we have sources that can be used to say a limited range of things.—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general that "reliable" has multiple meanings. A company's website is a reliable source to establish who their CEO is, but not whether they abide by the law; a well-known magnetizer's blog could bring notability to a subject, although its scientific content is impossible to trust. However, in that particular issue, I fear we end up with an article about Lorraine Warren's claims on the doll, not the doll itself. Tigraan (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's productive to distinguish Lorraine Warren's claims from the doll itself. Without the claims the doll wouldn't be notable. Without the doll there would be no claims. So the article has to be about the claims about the doll. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with writing an article about Lorraine Warren's claims, given the sources we have.—S Marshall T/C 20:43, 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 Speedy Deleted (G5) by Mike V. nac –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle[edit]

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

Not sure wht to say other then this is one long list-not sure how real this is either with 12K songs??? anyway this list is just way too long Wgolf (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I never thought I see the day where a list about someone is longer then the actual article about someone! Wgolf (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete. The reference does not support the list (and if it did perhaps a link on the singer's article would suffice). None of the songs have any more than year and title, so there is no actual information i.e. encyclopedic information there. Perhaps the nominator might like to add List of Nepalese songs recorded by Asha Bhosle and List of Tamil songs recorded by Asha Bhosle. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot - Nothing here that's encycolopedic so will have to say delete. –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richhoncho-Done- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nepalese songs recorded by Asha Bhosle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tamil songs recorded by Asha Bhosle Wgolf (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I like to add: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asha Bhosle discography Wgolf (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bhojpuri songs recorded by Asha Bhosle Wgolf (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep: This singer is included in Guinness Book of world Records for singing most songs. She it's reasonable to have 5-6 thousand songs list ob

n wikipedia. You American and Western people always underestimate the Indian people. That's why you think that your country's singer sing 100-200 songs, that's why other singers can't sing 5-6000 songs. These are different lists. I hope which people are screaming for deleting these articles, they aren't illiterate . They should know that Hindi, Tamil, Bhojpuri are different languages. So, if any singer sings any song in Hindi, it's totally different from Tamil. Moreover, if shreya ghoshal can have different articles, List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, List of Tamil songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, List of Telugu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal, List of Malayalam songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. Then, why shouldn't have Asha Bhosle these articles? These people are forcibly trying to scoff the singer who has sung most songs in world history, included in Guinness Book. If it would be any American singer, they would allow 300 articles for a singer, who has sung less than 100 songs. Shraddha Arya (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shraddha Arya:. I am not unsympathetic to claims underestimation, but not sure it is applicable here. A note in Asha Boshe's article saying he has sung a number of songs in this language and a number of songs in that language, been in the Guiness Book of Records etc. is information and worth keeping. That is not the same as listing each song. One line in this article reads "Jeevan tara 1951, Jagmag jagmag deep jale" and that explains nothing to me. Put it another way, I want to learn about India and it's playback singers, but this (these) list(s) cannot inform me or anybody who is not already familiar with the subject as it stands. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shraddha Arya has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:02, 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Shallal[edit]

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

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. None of the recently added references go beyond routine match reporting. None deal with the subject either exclusively or as significantly all of the report. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG Has multiple appearances in the Asian continental competitions in the 2015 AFC Cup including this this this and in the AFC Champions League the regional equivalent to the UEFA Champions League as per this and was part of the Bahrain team in the 2015 AFC Asian Cup as per this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my understanding of continental matches was that the player still had to be involved in a match between two teams from WP:FPLs. the inclusion in the Bahrain squad is not relevant. Per WP:NFOOTY, the player actually has to play, not simply be called up to the squad, I believe from this that he was an unused substitute in all three games. Fenix down (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Riffa S.C. is a fully professional team, in a fully professional league, the top division in Bahrain is fully professional since around mid-2000's, hence it only has 10 teams. Unless he has not started in the Riffa squad then he passes the WP: Footy Notability test.

Comment - Please review WP:FPL, there is no consensus that the Bahraini league is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There are around 10 pro teams in the country, and with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions all play in this league, similarly the league itself is very much near-to pro, again with the exception of a few teams. Either way the club Riffa S.C. definitely is pro, it's also one of the oldest clubs in the region, and won AFC championships, the players earn an astonishing amount of money Abcmaxx (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so as you say, it is not "fully" professional, as required by NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still have my doubts whether it is not, I was certain it was fully professionalised by now, the WP:FPL is outdated and incomplete Abcmaxx (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of reliable sources confirming it, the claim to full professionalism doesn't carry any weight as far as notability goes. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 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, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in Champions League match versus fully professional team from Qatar Stars League listed at WP:FPL. While Bahraini league is not fully professional, it's been asserted that Riffa itself is, and thus he has played in a match between two fully professional teams in the Champions League. Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a match continental club competition to confer notability it must have been a match between two clubs who play in fully pro leagues, and as you've pointed out, the Bahraini league is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough. We've applied that standard before. Given he's been called to national team, but yet to be capped, with a lot of media coverage about that, there's several weak claims that could be made. The sum total makes it WP:COMMONSENSE to keep this article. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 18 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 // 00:24, 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.

[1] ttp://www.quora.com/How-can-I-be-as-great-as-Bill-Gates-Steve-Jobs-Elon-Musk-Richard-Branson

[1]