Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INetClean[edit]

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

Filtering software that doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. No reliable secondary sources provided, I can't find any, and the article gives no reason to think they exist. —Cryptic 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are blogs and company PR, not WP:RS. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 26 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 AirTrain JFK. czar ⨹ 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal 1 (AirTrain JFK station)[edit]

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

Station is not notable on its own, aside from the rest of the AirTrain JFK system. Article reads more like a travel guide and there is no historical or technical information about the station that would not otherwise be appropriate to be in its parent article. I am also nominating the other 7 station articles below for the reasons noted above:

–Dream out loud (talk) 23:26, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AirTrain JFK. While the stations themselves might not be notable alone, the AirTrain JFK system is notable, so any distinguishing details about any of the stations can be included in the main AirTrain JFK article. Epic Genius (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AirTrain JFK, per Epic Genius, although quite reluctantly. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to AirTrain JFK - Not really seeing an reason to have an article on individual terminals, All what's here can be merged to AirTrain JFK anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - these are very small stations for a short line railway. FWIW, I've been to several of these stations. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I hate to bring this up, but while the nominee insists there are no sources for any AirTrain JFK station articles, there's even less data on the AirTrain Newark station articles. Stations of both systems are minor, but I'd like to think we could add some info to them if necessary. --------User:DanTD (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the AirTrain Newark station articles and I was planning on nominating them as well, pending the outcome of this nomination. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this were the case, I would nominate those to be redirected as well. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:02, 25 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. There are sufficient reliable sources to verify notability. JodyB_talk 23:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Casey[edit]

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

Article on a WP:FRINGE advocate supported by two sources, one self-published and the other unreliable. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey, ~~User:Gene93k~~ User:JzG/help, I took a quick look, starting with the most recent (2013) book, which is published by a major house. that induced me to put his name and the book title into a news google search; came up with a handful of investment newsletters (one that advises buying gold describes him as a "famous contrarian speculator and libertarian freethinker" and did a book interview [1]) This is a far cry from Charles Schwab or Goldman Sachs, but I'm not certain that all of these newsletters be dismissed as fringe. The first link was to an author interview on Reason (magazine). Do you want to perhaps take a second look, maybe do a little more searching and then make a better-supported justification for AFD? E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @User:E.M.Gregory: FYI, Gene93k did not nominate the article for deletion. User:JzG is the nominator. Just wanted to clarify.--JayJasper (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My error, thanks for correction User:JzG/help - do you want to rethink?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the nominator's 'root' username is @JzG:, signature points to a sub user-space page.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is now supported by mulitiple reliable secondary sources including Forbes, Reason magazine, USA Today, as well as some notable books. The article was in need of better sourcing and a little cleanup, not deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to User:JayJasper's sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easy to find sources that prove notability, wp-fringe not necessarily a reason to delete.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy? Splendid. Please add some. Otherwise the article violates policy, you see. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty sources that prove notability. I've added a few.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked over the sources and there just isn't enough to establish notability. The Forbes articles are the most directly about him, but they are opinion pieces, which Forbes does not take responsibility for. So, they are not reliable. Several other sources are primary or trivial mention. There isn't one in-depth reliable source. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's just enough coverage of him in independent sources to pass the WP:GNG bar. Add in the fact he wrote a # 1 Bestseller book, notability is established.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:40, 30 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 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Porter[edit]

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

Was speedy deleted:-*Anthony, I do believe G6 applies: neither Nyree Dawn Porter nor Dawn O'Porter is the same article name. We could use a hatnote to distinguish on Nyree's article, but no disambiguation of Dawn Porter (filmmaker) is required, imo, and should be moved to Dawn Porter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: But it has 3 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dawn seems to be unambiguously the middle name in Nyree Dawn Porter. But I do see that Dawn O'Porter isn't even used consistently in that very article, so yes I see now my speedy never had a chance: Dawn O'Porter seems to not even be used in reliable sources as recently as 2012! I'm sorry to trouble you and make you raise it here via an Afd -- it won't pass. No objection to this just being closed declined. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dawn O'Porter's maiden name is Dawn Porter, and she was known as htis until she married in her mid-30s - I think she's probably still better known as this. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She is indeed. The news ref from 2012 makes that quite clear. Again, sorry about all this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Shawn in Montreal, it has resulted in the page being clearer. If you ut 'withdraw nomination' in bold, it can be closed, if that's what you feel is best, Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR. thanks --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:08, 27 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. Despite limited participation, we almost never keep articles about local branches of this sort. A7 might have done it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JCI Ralston[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BRANCH criteria for a separate article: Local town chapter of the Jaycees; no significant independent coverage found, just rehashes of the organization's own output. Closeapple (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ per own nomination: Based on what little coverage exists on the web, it appears that the vast majority is just republished JCI Ralston press information about local events. As an example of not being able to get any independent depth of coverage: The article (which contains no sources) claims that Ralston somehow "restructured" to become part of JCI instead of the U.S. Jaycees, but I can't find it even when I search for it, and the Ralston website doesn't even address it and shows either or both logos arbitrarily on the website. No sources, so no verified claims to merge to any other article. --Closeapple (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote by nominator, put the entirety of your rationale in the nomination statement. You can comment, though. Esquivalience ^t 23:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the article is advertising, and there is no indication that this particular sub-unit of the organisation is notable in it's own right. -- Whpq (talk) 22:56, 26 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) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Artus[edit]

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

This BLP has no reliable sources (only IMDB). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails to pass reliable sources rule for biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many small bits, some of them classic redshirt characters. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 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 - Padenton's also reminded not to nominate articles which have only been created 10 minutes ago - We want to keep newcomers not scare them off, Thanks. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk ~~18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)~~. 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the constant closes - Laptop's playing up as per usual!. –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM ― Padenton |☎ 21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Padenton please read WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion. Any film starring Gérard Depardieu and Elizabeth Hurley clearly meets WP:MOVIE. Yes the article still needs work but Кориоланыч only started it today. The only thing other than "keep" that could be done is to move it to draft space until it is in better shape. MarnetteD|Talk 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Keep. Sorry nominator, but this is a really bad nomination. Even for an unfinished article this topic easily met WP:NF. Look to Daily Mail [2], The New York Times [3], Detroit News [4], Film Journal International [5], Village Voice [6], Detroit Free Press [7], New York Daily News [8], The Hollywood Reporter [9], Sud-Ouest [10], Voici [11], and CBS News [12], and look to WP:NRVE to consider only a few of the MANY available toward this topic. Under WP:SURMOUNTABLE we do best to not judge a topic only by its current state. It's always best to practice a little WP:BEFORE prior to sending a brand new article to AFD within 9 minutes of it being authored. Sure, User:Кориоланыч might have started it in a sandbox, but research would have shown you or anyone the topic's innate notability. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a review of sources in the article, passes WP:NFSOURCES. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 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 Speedy Keep. Per SK1 & all that shizz (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waking the Witch (band)[edit]

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

~~Band that has been tagged for notability since 2008-and considering the EL took me to a Ralph Lauren page, I'm pretty sure they are no longer in existence. Wgolf (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)~~withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid argument given for deletion - neither having a maintenance tag, a broken external link, nor having split up are good reasons. Plenty of coverage exists, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I'm with Michig--- I'm not seeing a valid deletion rationale. Did the nom even try WP:BEFORE? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well looking up waking the witch I didn't seem to get anything for a band was the thing. But I probably might withdraw....Wgolf (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, no, if all you did for a Google search was type in "waking the witch," just the once, then yeah, that'd give you a lot of hits for a Kate Bush song or a book by that name. So what stopped you from refining the search? "Waking The Witch" + Leeds gives you 12,000 hits.[33] "Waking The Witch" + band gives you 40,000 hits.[34] Kinda sloppy there, man. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Passes WP:BAND. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw-okay withdrawn then Wgolf (talk) 21:23, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Riddick Jessie[edit]

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

Perhaps worth a merge/redirect to Eugenics Board of North Carolina, but I couldn't establish that Jessie meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nature and level of the coverage does not justify a stand alone article on this individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this woman was an unfortunate crime victim, but I don't see how she's notable. I am willing to change my mind to avoid the Missing white woman syndrome. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 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) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Hopkins[edit]

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

Autobiographical article created by new user with edit summary Created Professional Profile. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn: he has had an interesting life, but I see nothing here that suggests encyclopedic WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources exist, but all are insignificant (they just mention his name). ~EdGl! 03:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be the "average professor". Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A long list of non-notable accomplishments. Nothing in the article rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 26 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 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Household Names[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this seemingly-promotional article can meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage, e.g. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], also had a track in the soundtrack of Hellbent. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Shearer-Nelko[edit]

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

Not notable. She has been runner-up and finalist in some contests but has not won any prestigious ones. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject clearly passes the GNG. Winning contests isn't a requirement for notability, being noticed is. Nelko and/or her work has been written about in detail by multiple reliable sources, including several already in the article and others such as [44][45][46] and so on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 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, JodyB_talk 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources found, keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to just meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough writing on the person to pass notability. Results in dance competitions are irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 25 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) 00:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Clansmen[edit]

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

I declined G4 as the article differs from the previous one. I can't, however, see any increase in the showing of notability, and the article is only referenced to the team's own site. University sports (with the exception of The Boat Race) do not receive great attention in the UK, unlike the position in the USA. Peridon (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted above, 99.999% of university sport in the UK is not notable even on the campus of the institution, let alone outside it, especially in a minority sport like American football -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated it originally for speedy deletion which was declined and instead nominated for deletion. I've also nominated another University team for deletion. There's nothing notable about this team. The team plays in the British Universities American Football League and no other team in that league is notable (and other teams' pages in that league were deleted circa 2009/2010 (e.g. Durham University AfD, Plymouth University AfD, Glasgow AfD, etc... ) Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Scottish university sports team. Subject does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 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 The X Factor (New Zealand series 2)#Shae Brider. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shae Brider[edit]

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

Contestant on reality TV show does not equate to notability, nor does being a convicted murderer. Fails GNG Mattlore (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The X Factor (New Zealand series 2)#Shae Brider, which has all that needs to be said about the subject and their run on the show. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is appropriate; certainly doesn't even come close to meet general notability, and does not meet WP:CRIME either. Schwede 66 05:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect makes complete sense. Not notable, and no point in duplicating content. -- haminoon (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. NealeFamily (talk) 00:06, 26 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 - fails notability. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ambrose[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (sports). Lacks any recognition. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG - "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.." Within seconds I was able to find this, this and this. And there's this which states his victory in that race was the first ever for Team Novo Nordisk (his cycling team). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... So? A 2.2 victory isn't notable (per guidelines)... Plus it's his only accomplishment. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, no media coverage outside his victory (minus blog and team bios). Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guideliness are stating what notable articles are and not the other way around, that all other articles are not notable. I know many cyclists who has pages that don't meet the WP:NCYCLING. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, we can keep this article. In addition a few sources in foreign languages here and here. Note: article also has French article: fr:Scott Ambrose. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? All the sources are about the same victory. Outside of that, nothing exists. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really aren't multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I don't think there are any, except the cycling database sites. The biography on the team website is clearly not independent, while the other articles address him only tangentially. There's every chance an article will be appropriate in future, but NotJustYet. Relentlessly (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Subject not likely to remain low-profile. Can be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we aren't here to predict the future; right now he just isn't notable. WalkingOnTheB (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability. 164.106.2.242 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty poor attempt at a sock puppet account, Buzzards. Your userpage states you're from Northern Virginia. The IP editor has made 10 edits in total, with only four in the last two years, and they come to this AfD. Just by chance. And their IP address is from Virginia Community College System. In Richmond. Northern Virginia. I'm looking at a row of ducks right now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great investigative work. :) Why would I? My opinion has weight. The anon made numerous edits on Team Novo Nordisk... Richmond is 2-3 hours from NVA; Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia, are closer. I would take this seriously, if Lugnuts wasn't a biased editor. He said: "I'm not even sure why you exist on here TBH", and stalks my contributions, he injected himself in a conversation between me and an admin. I think that demonstrates Lugnuts' stripes. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Paperpencils and Lugnuts are inclusionists... They edit on English time. Puppets? Crazy, isn't? Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised this issue at ANI for further discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per two keep votes above. Article can be expanded with the help of other sources that are mentioned in fr.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to find articles featuring him in multiple sources online, notability requirements for athletes are surprisingly lean - get rid of this one, and 90% of all the soccer (football) and rugby players in Wikipedia would disappear. ScrapIronIV (talk) 13:29, 31 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 (effectively withdrawn) (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Glasspool[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (sports). Lacks any recognition. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suggest the nominator actually reads WP:Notability (sports), or to be more precise WP:NCYC (notability for cyclists). Per WP:NCYC - "Competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup" (my highlight). Rode in the 2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships – Men's 1 km time trial. Also a medalist at several Oceania Track Championships (2011, 2010, etc) too. And not to mention the WP:POINTY nomination following this discussion which Buzzards was quickly shown the door. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing at OTC isn't notable, "Won Gold at an international multi-sport event (games)." While he rode a UCI World Championship - didn't notice before nominating, he lacks media standing. No interviews or articles (excluding blogs and team bio); his page can't be expanded. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCYC (5x): competed at the 2012 UCI Track Cycling World Championships; 4x national track champion (elite) see here. I don't agree with Buzzards-Watch Me Work, he had media coverage of the 2012 World Championships, for instance: Australian James Glasspool impressed at his first senior world championships, finishing ninth in 1:02.165 (here) and was live broadcasted worldwide. Besides of that his page can be expanded, I started doing it here. More info available on his own website. Note: he also has a French page fr:James Glasspool. Sander.v.Ginkel ^{(Je suis Charlie)} 22:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sander.v.Ginkel's expansion. However, his website could be biased. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 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. Also note copyv issue re http://www.scchiphop.com/scc-bio.html j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South City Commission[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO ― Padenton |☎ 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom Wgolf (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real indication of notability, would need a complete rewrite anyway. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 29 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.

Even with my opining a keep, I am closing discussion as article was already speedy G5 deleted. AFD is now moot and superfluousness.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Rahi filmography[edit]

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

No reason for this to have its own article. All the information is also at Sultan Rahi. I'm not sure what the policy on filmography pages is, but this one definitely seems superfluous. Liam987 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP and being suitable under WP:SALAT. The man is a Guinness Book of World Records holder for having worked in over 800 films, and adding them to the Sultan Rahi article would definitely overwhelm that target. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this has been deleted by User:Ponyo with the rationale CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Undertaker2015. Liam987 (talk) 22:10, 26 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) 00:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Guillen[edit]

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

Article that keeps on getting the prod/blp prod/speedy removed by the page creator. Autobio with not much reliable refs for it. (and was he really discovered by Mel Gibson???) Wgolf (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to demonstrated notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His role in Huge may be big enough for notability, but I am not really sure. We would need reliable sources and not just IMDB to establish his notability though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 26 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) 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping illness[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that this is an new and unique medical condition. Relevant info can instead be included in the article on the village. I cannot find any medical sources on the sickness, only news reports with speculation. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: this is a news report, not an encyclopedic article, written by copy-pasting/closely paraphrasing parts of news articles. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep per it's current state. A new editor that goes by the name "Srhesler29" vandalized this article several times. I have revered this yet again. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 19:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per P. S. Burton and Qwertyus. A cluster of people have been found to be unwell, the cause has not been identified. While this is interesting, such speculation should not be the basis for an encyclopedic article named as if it were an established medical condition. As far as I can see, the current reports are certainly not sufficient for anyone to be portraying this as accepted diagnostic term. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as separate article and merge information into article on the Kalachi. Not enough to stand on its own; speculation, as well. Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've decided to delete my support vote and instead throw in a delete vote per new comments and arguments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. BakerStMD T|C 19:04, 27 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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing By Advantages[edit]

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

This is a long article about one of those goofy business-management processes that comes with its own language and acronyms. Most of the sources are primary - either publications by the method's inventor, or conference proceedings with a common author, a single professor who seems to have adopted the approach. That professor is an author on the conference proceedings, an organizer of the conference, and the supervisor for all of the theses cited. The closest this comes to secondary coverage is a discussion in an engineering management society newsletter, which is only secondary in the sense that it is discussing previous presentations made at society meetings. Google didn't turn up any additional independent coverage. The article also reads like a copyvio - created in one shot, spurious references to nonexistent figures, etc. - but I didn't find a source. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the creator's other contributions, I suspect paid editing here. Deb (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not appear to be a notable concept and smacks of Original Research. The article reads like an essay or journal article rather than a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete WP:SNOW and a well argued need to remove this in a timely fashion. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015[edit]

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

This article is an unencyclopedic trainwreck, trying to do its own mashed-together comparison of party policies copy-pasted in places from the party's website. It's something far better handled by linking to the party's website itself, it's not a topic there's any precedent of, and it needs to go. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've cut heaps of close paraphrasing and plagiarism from this article, and there is still a lot more to go. After all of the copyvio content is removed it's going to be so bare-bones and erratic in coverage to be pointless. Beyond that, there has already been a discussion about this style of content presentation, where the clear consensus was against tables and for prose. As it stands this article is not encyclopaedic, and I don't see it getting closer any time soon; to be honest I simply don't see it ever being encyclopaedic, the main electoral issues should be covered in the main election article. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Appears to this editor's eye to be an unencyclopedic mess. --IJBall (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Riddled with copyvios and a hugely excessive WP:FORK, created against prior consensus. Frickeg (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a mess. Just a long list of WP:OR nonsense with exactly the sort of massive holes, gaps and guesses you'd expect from such an effort. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete article is a mess but really reason is the blatant selective presentation and comparison of political parties. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although it may appear bias for/against parties, a lot of that may be due to my removal of close paraphrased/plagiarised content which has probably left the article lopsided or lumpy in parts. It was still a mess before I went at it though, and there is still more dubious content to be removed. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete prior to being nominated I had a read and it did seem like an advert for the Greens. No real value in this case. Screech1616 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons above, but I also feel that it may start to WP:SNOW soon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: as the election is being held this Saturday, I reckon a snow closure would be a really good idea; do we really want this up during a period where the article will be getting the most views? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am answering the following:

Argument 1: (by The Drover's Wife) “it's not a topic there's any precedent of”, if that were true, that wouldn’t be a reason for deletion in itself.

Argument 2: (by various) “close paraphrasing and plagiarism”, well, that is corrected by editing the article, the article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that. I’ll go through the article again to check that but I think that the close paraphrasing criticism is being applied to harshly because as I read in some wikipedia policy, close paraphrasing would be allow when there are only a few ways in which something can be said without changing the meaning, but I will go through the article again to review everything again.

Argument 2.1: (by ColonialGrid) “After all of the copyvio content is removed it's going to be so bare-bones and erratic in coverage to be pointless.”, that doesn’t make sense because the text that has that problem can be rewritten in a different way, it doesn’t need to be “removed”, it can be just “rewritten”. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.

Argument 3: (by St★lwart) “Just a long list of WP:OR”, if you think that something is original research, delete that. it’s not original research since it is based on 133 references, what the article says is based on the references. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.

Argument 4: (by Screech1616) “ it did seem like an advert for the Greens”, please explain why, if that were to happen that can be corrected. What is an advert? An advert would be an intentional effort to present the Greens above what sources say. I am not doing that, what I am saying about the Greens is based on the sources. Be free to change what you think is an advert. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.

A Text Search of the article counts the term "Greens" a whopping 44 times, "Liberal" 17 times, "Australian Labor" & "Country Labor" 13 times each - not bad for a minor party! Screech1616 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argument 5: (by Lankiveil) “I also feel that it may start to WP:SNOW”, are you trying to say that it is not winnable ? The fact that various persons have said “Delete” doesn’t mean it’s not winnable, do you see? Because I am responding to the arguments and I think I am right. This is not about the number of people, it’s about the arguments. These kinds of things that are connected to politics are delicate and there are many interests so that information is presented in only certain ways and some persons are interested in that, so the fact that there are not persons here saying “Keep” doesn’t mean that there would not be many persons that want this article to be kept.

Argument 6, 7, … : There are more arguments that people have said here, please let me a little more time to respond to them (At this moment I don’t more time to write more, not right now). I am trying to be precise and organised with the arguments so all the issues being discussed will be dealt with. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also think (as I have all along) that this format is encyclopaedic - don't cherry pick my comments, read them in their entirety. And the question is who will do this work? The only person willing to do it could be you, but after you have had copyvio concerns pointed out numerous times you persist including them; I am rapidly loosing faith in your ability to constructively contribute to this project in a way that respects Wikipedia's policies and the community's consensus. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there's something right that you are saying: It's only ME that is willing to do this, you all guys are opposed to it and seem to think along the lines: "stop it, don't do it, the way things happen now in NSW is good enough for us".

Do you guys live in Sydney? Have you asked people why they are going to vote for a particular party? Many say that is because they have always voted for the same party all their lives. That means that the major parties have it easy because they have the votes with certainty, no need to make any effort to win the votes of the people. So this effort that I am doing would help people with information about what the parties promise. The information will not be 100% complete and perfectly balanced as it's only me that is doing it but at least it's SOME information and that is better than what we have now.

-----

Look what happened in Brisbane:

http://candobetter.net/node/1159

"Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections"

"Brisbane's local ABC radio station 612 ... refused any air time to local independent candidates. Instead, virtually all the available time was given over to candidates from the governing Labor Party or the Opposition Liberal National Party, who even according to the ABC's own listeners, provided little useful information."

"It was incumbent on the taxpayer-funded ABC to encourage any independent candidate who overcame Anna Bligh's engineered time constraints and had information ready for the voting public despite often limited campaign budgets. Instead, one ABC presenter effectively ridiculed an independent candidate before her audiences on one occasion, when, on Friday 20 March, the day before the elections, a morning presenter told listeners of an independent candidate who had only managed to release his policy statement the previous day. Then she remarked: "They're leaving their pitch until a little late, aren't they?" No useful information was given to the audience about that candidate."

-----

This would not only be important to people before the election but also after it so people can know if the winners of the election are following their election promises.

You know what consequence this will have? that wikipedia will cease to be relevant, newspapers are no longer relevant as are so biased, and now wikipedia is controlled by people that want that information is presented in the way that the two main parties want, not only about this topic but also on the article of the election in which you can only display Labor and the liberals in the infographic and that the election is presented as a fight only between labor and the coalition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_South_Wales_state_election,_2015). So people will realise that and see that wikipedia is biased. Don't think people will not notice. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - the above "answers" don't actually address anything and can be boiled down to, "despite a lack of experience and understanding of policy, I think what I'm doing is right so no number of deletion opinions validate deletion". Nobody can argue with that because it's nonsense. This is obviously a Green-tinged effort, as demonstrated by the passing Greens one-liners given weight as "policy" and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades. Delete and salt well before polling day (Saturday). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades"

But the major parties don't advertise them on their websites, look, on corruption or electoral reform, what Labor and the Liberals say?

I can't find anything about that on their websites:

http://act.nswlabor.org.au/policy

http://nsw.liberal.org.au/ourplanfornsw/ Abcdudtc (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of those parties is in government - government policy is the government's policy. The other was in Government before that. But there is no requirement for either party to release an electoral reform policy just because the Greens have. The Greens have also tried to ban BBQs at polling booths to placate vegetarians (who otherwise shop in regular grocery stores with delis and butchers). It is ridiculous to suggest the major parties should therefore have polling day BBQ policies. This is just a dumb attempt to shill for the Greens. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a clear consensus to delete this page, but it has not yet been done and the election is being held tomorrow, I have made the page a redirect temporarily until after the election (or possibly in perpetuity). ColonialGrid (talk) 05:32, 27 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 per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Riordan Jones[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this author whose works are self-published ebooks, editor who created this has been spamming the subject's ebooks. Obvious COI Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Honestly I didn't know there was a Conflict of Interest issue on Wikipedia (I didn't read every guideline). Should I just take my entry down? I figured most authors just posted info about their work where it applies and set up their own bios (since they know the exact dates when their works were copy-written and published and such). I'm not sure what to do now. I only just created an account today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spawnoftyphon (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent sources = no notability. Could we interpret the above post and this post as reason for db-self? If not that, I think we could get away with db-promo. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 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. czar ⨹ 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paysan[edit]

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

Not notable biography of a living person. The sources do not show notabily - one is unreliable (OVOW), one is not third part (a promotion he works for) and the third basically verifies that he exists and is a wrestler. Existence is not enough to show notability. Being a wrestler is in itself not enough to show notability. Original nomination had no discussion other than one saying "Keep he's a wrestler". MPJ -US 16:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive indication of notability that would satisfy WP:NSPORT, and no strong volume of reliable sourcing to claim WP:GNG instead. Simply being able to document that a person exists is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original AfD chose to delete, someone recreated the article years later but never really bothered to prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass notability guidelines for wrestlers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1 TV match. Wrestled in minor promotions but did not achieve major success in the biggest independent promotions. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wasn't notable in 2006, Isn't notable now, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:19, 29 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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dato' Mohd Zamrie Dato' Sulong[edit]

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

Non-notable bio, heavily sourced from "about" section of employers website. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls far short of our notability guidelines for businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 26 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. czar ⨹ 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juug[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC, with no reliable sourcing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC Liam987 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 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. czar ⨹ 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Java secure coding practices[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR, which the article creator admits themselves. Suggest salting as they keep recreating this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:OR Lakun.patra (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author releasing their content as CC is generous, but Wikibooks is the place for that kind of content, not a Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After being patrolled, I have added several images which are part of my own research. All of the content is written after several study on the topic of secure coding. This material is need to be published on WIKI so that users who are looking for the right content will not have to run one site to other site. Now days people are looking for exact material/data what they need. A year back I was in need of same thing, then I started to research on the same data and have taken references from some tech sites then collectively I created this. This content is need of every java programmer who wants to write secure code. This article will become their first need. This article tells every possible mitigation technique for currently available attacks. I have created this article after 1 year of research and I am hoping that wiki java users will like this content more than any other. I have taken reference from OWASP and right to publish the content under creative common license 3.0.

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO

This article is based on my own research on the topics included in the article. This research is conclusion of several other practical and theoretical research which might inspired from other sources.

Delete per WP:OR

By considering that Wikipedia article should be an encyclopedic reference not instruction page. And I follow the rules and have properly told inside do and don't. Whatever is mentioned in Do and Don't is described in detail inside the article with examples and media files.

Delete per nom

This content required to be publish as Wiki Article not Wikibooks. Wiki Book is the section for reference based long books not for researched articles. I am following Wikipedia from long time back and I respect the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I have created this article by considering all the terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiteshsachan (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Shiteshsachan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article contains some important sections like error handling. The way, this section has been explained is awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.109.62 (talk) 18:14, 25 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Average attendances of La Liga clubs[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork, that's already covered in the La Liga season articles. Fails WP:NOTSTATS JMHamo (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 18:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's an attendance article of MLS too, and I think of Chinese Super League too, and of non-european clubs too. And of European Club too, but of all of them you just had to have a shot at this? and there's a template, named 'La Liga' and that lists average attendances (I didn't put it there, I just changed its link) and just to remind you the Season articles don't give source of where the Data has came from, ESPN FC just shows highest and lowest attendances. And even still you want to delete it, a alternative of it would be adding a section named, 'Attendances' in the La Liga article. Sybest 7 7 ^{Talk to Me} / _{Contributions} 19:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So your reason for keeping this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? JMHamo (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:NOTSTATS. – Michael (talk) 04:59, 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 keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaiMai[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no assertion of notability Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Evidently the article's subject is notable, and there are now a couple of sources. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Before all please fix the capitalization (full small letters) and please never start separate articles for each of the "sequels" which are in fact just version updates (i.e. just redirect maimai Plus/maimai Green/maimai Green Plus/maimai Orange). Refer to zh:maimai for the horde of sources, thank you (ja:maimai has too much cruft), more prominently [47][48][49]. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Over seventy footnotes in zh:MaiMai. It has been nominated and listed at Chinese wikipedia's WP:DYK. Antigng (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those 70 footnotes are reliable? Does the zhwp's DYK process include source vetting? Otherwise I don't see why those arguments are pertinent. czar ⨹ 01:56, 23 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) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two hits from WP:VG/RS: [50], [51]. Not sure if [52] is more than a press release, but it's reliable. Imagine there's plenty more in Japanese sources here. czar ⨹ 01:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be 4Gamer's own report at a SEGA trade show. IIRC 4Gamer put a red notice at the top for full PR reposts (like this one), and a grey frame around the repost parts if they supply their own lead (like this one). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:27, 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. Michig (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Eggy That Could[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability for this video game. bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 22 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) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 02:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Refs provided are user-editable sites and company PR, not WP:RS.Dialectric (talk) 15:11, 25 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Marshal[edit]

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

Notability far from established. This reads like a highly inflated autobiographical CV with no hint of notability in any of the claimed areas. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I should have left this longer before AfD since there is a whole lot of chaotic editing going on with rapid removals and additions. Advise looking at page history.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Bangalore Mirror article from August 2011 is the only reference in this article that really stands up to scrutiny. The criteria for notability set out in WP:FILMMAKER do not appear to have not been met.
Delete I mean the guy seems interesting, but his only notable work seems to be a really cheap film. As I said on its talk page, that's the only reason I didn't put it up for speedy delete. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Seems to be a article full of citation needed notes! Wgolf (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Marshal may well at some point contribute enough work to rise to the level of notability, he has not done so yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:44, 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 speedy keep. A valid deletion rationale has not been presented. For more information, see WP:DEL-REASON. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Home Science[edit]

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

A faculty of a university needs separate page? Vin09 (talk) 10:05, 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. No consensus to delete. To keep or merge is out of afd scope. (Non-admin closure)Antigng (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Affluence Stop[edit]

(View AfD · Stats)

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

Batch nomination of the above 70 stub articles (all the light rail stops of the MTR Light Rail, and the two existing articles on its routes). The station articles were almost all entirely created in January 2009 by User:Ricky@36. A very similar set of articles was proposed for deletion in January 2007; the debate was closed as no consensus (tending towards delete) but a week after they were all redirected anyway.

The nominator of the stop articles in 2007 noted that the articles were quite formulaic: each consists of a short description about how the stop is a light rail stop located "on the ground" in zone x with two platforms; it is on road y near that road's junction with road z; it serves residential developments a and b; and is on lines p and q. For pretty much all of these articles, not much has changed since 2007, except they now have a few more templates and Chinese translations (but still, mostly, no references or just a link to the MTR's website). Most, if not all, of the stops are not particularly individually notable in their own right, five-sixths of them being of almost identical structure; they are quite similar to bus stops (in, for instance, mostly not being named after place names but residential estates and other establishments or roads, and having small catchment areas). Most of them are unlikely ever to be expanded beyond stub articles.

These articles could be summarized in the main Light Rail (Hong Kong) article; be merged into a few articles similar to the Lists of Pokémon; or simply redirected (which I would prefer). For the few articles that contain more than three short paragraphs, an infobox, navboxes and S-line templates (Sam Shing, Tuen Mun Ferry Pier) which don't have a rapid transit/metro station right next to them (Tuen Mun; Siu Hong; Tin Shui Wai; and Yuen Long, which should be merged into Tuen Mun Station; Siu Hong Station; Tin Shui Wai Station; and Yuen Long Station respectively) they could be kept. [EDIT: Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop could be merged into a section in Tuen Mun Ferry Pier. I'm not sure what parent article Sam Shing Stop could be merged with because there are no articles for Hanford Gardens, Sam Shing Estate or Sam Shing Hui. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The articles on the routes lack references and have not been expanded since their creation six years ago by User:KX675 (created 505) and User:Montemonte (created 705/706; apparently blocked for sockpuppetry). They should probably be redirected to and given short descriptions in Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:

Article	Into
MTR Light Rail Route 505	Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
MTR Light Rail Route 705/706	Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes
Sam Shing Stop	?
Siu Hong Stop	Siu Hong Station
Tin Shui Wai Stop	Tin Shui Wai Station
Tuen Mun Stop	Tuen Mun Station
Tuen Mun Ferry Pier Stop	?
Yuen Long Stop	Yuen Long Station

The rest can probably be ~~deep-sixed~~ merged into an omnibus List of MTR tram stops^{Useddenim (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)}. Useddenim (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am extremely unfamiliar with the Light Rail system, despite being a frequent MTR user. I will, though, note that in most MTR route maps (say in-train displays), most of these stops are not named individually, but only as brief route lines around the West Rail Line. For reference, a majority of the stops' articles in zhwp has a lot more text worked in for their History sections, but sourcing would definitely require improvement. Tentatively I see spinning out Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes and giving each stop a small section a possible solution, and merge Yuen Long/Tin Sui Wai/Tuen Mun/Siu Hong into their MTR station articles, per Useddenim. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know that I'd liken them to bus stops. Looking at the photographs these are stations with side platforms, physical structures, and overpasses. This appears to be a true light rail system and not a tram system, and generally light rail stations are kept. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are more than simple tram stops, which just have a sign by the road like a bus stop. They are more akin to genuine stations, and we traditionally keep all those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination openly declares that "These articles could be summarized... be merged ... or simply redirected". Such actions are all performed by ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD. Therefore, per WP:SK, this discussion should be terminated forthwith. Andrew D. (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per others. I think there is decent potential to expand the articles based on Chinese Wikipedia, where the analogous LRT stop articles are not huge but would altogether be too much to compile into a single overview page. I feel more ambivalent about the route pages though. Citobun (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Citobun: I wouldn't put all of them into just one overview page, but rather have five or six based on the fare zones to make the article size more manageable. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles can be expanded based on Chinese articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good afternoon (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Good afternoon: The problem with that is, other than a few stations which have had accidents or other incidents occur close to or at them (Hang Mei Tsuen, zh), there's not much to translate other than station layout tables and bus route information (and for a few, track diagrams). Some, however, do have rush hour information (Leung King, zh) or route service history (Yau Oi, zh). Some of them definitely could be expanded, but information (e.g. line history) would end up being repeated in several articles (e.g. in 2003 route 720 services were replaced with route 751 services) (if the articles aren't consolidated, anyway) and there will probably be issues with finding sources other than fansites and blogs (most of the zhwiki articles have or should have {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}). Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Since this nomination concerns multiple articles, and there is no clear consensus so far, let us discuss one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These stops are notable in their own right, just like any stops on other networks around the globe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 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 - fails notability. UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor DuPriest[edit]

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

Non Notable due to being on one TV show in 2007 and being in a couple of beauty pagents.Vedasdoom (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have virtually no edits at all. Just like the last person who posted for awhile on the talk page awhile back. As I explained then, she passes WP:GNG and thus meets the Wikipedia rules for WP:NOTABILITY. ContraCostal Times, Inside Bay Area and Entertainment Weekly both provide ample coverage of her. Dream Focus 11:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A search of the Contra Costa Times shows no mention of her. Likewise a search of Inside Bay Area. There is an article on an ibabuzz blog, but blogs don't confer notability. The Entertainment Weekly material appears to be the words of the subject herself, which don't confer notability either. The two beauty contest results pages are from the pageant organization; if this was notable pageant, there should be independent news coverage. I didn't find any for those contests, but I did come across this.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom hold your mouse over "Ann Tatko-Peterson" and it shows her email address is [email protected] so she does work for the Bay Area News Group, and they do own Contra Costa Times. So no need to doubt what she has at the top of that site. Being mentioned and quoted in a independent reliable source counts towards notability. Primary sources aren't usually allowed for verifying information in an article, since people could lie. But that rule doesn't affect confirming notability. Dream Focus 00:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I wasn't clear in my meaning about the contest sites. Having won a contest could confer notability on the subject, but only if it's a notable contest. If no journalists or other authors write about the contest and its winners, this could be because it's a small local event. Also, from reading the policies, I do agree that a blog posting by a real journalist is better than one by a random person, but it's not as indicative of notability as the same as the same text published in an actual newspaper or magazine with an editor selecting and checking what's published. Here's another item about her; not sure if it's independent.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website listing one of the things she won says "One of the Most Popular Pageants in Georgia", so if that was true newspapers in that state might mention it somewhere. Not sure if "Miss Georgia Sweetheart" is a state thing or just one pageant. The coverage of her I mention is of her as a person, not her pageant bits. When the show was on, it was easier to find ample coverage of her in the news. Google news search isn't as great as it used to be. Dream Focus 04:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dream Focus should not be allowed / able to vote to keep the page, as Dream Focus is the creator of the page, which I see as a clear Conflict of Interest as Dream Focus has a vested interest in keeping the page on Wikipedia. Vedasdoom (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously no one would create a page about a topic that they thought wasn't notable. I don't see why Dream Focus shouldn't express an opinion. Whoever judges the consensus will take that into account.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Vedasdoom is a single purpose account, [53] with no edits other than trying to delete this article and arguing at the tea house because he had trouble nominating it and assumed I someone was preventing it despite the edit history of the article showing he just forgot to post the notice there. If the first thing you do when you come to Wikipedia is try to delete an article because you don't like it, you probably aren't going to be helping the encyclopedia much. Dream Focus 02:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep More source may be required, but those two are covering her significantly. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:20, 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 05:58, 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 04:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a single paragraph on her in the EW piece and then a short (three-paragraph) review from a local newspaper's blog. In my opinion, this does not rise to the level of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dommergue[edit]

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

No reliable sources AnSq (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 1. In general, I don't believe that YouTube is a reliable source. While the sources are actual interviews, which is where I might make an exception, I think that the presentation of these ones have some problems. The biggeest of these is in the title: it (ref 6) says that it's "The Truth" about the Holocaust, which it clearly isn't. The video description further expands on this with an idiotic Holocaust denying rant. The description on the other video (ref 3) literally uses the phrase "Jewish question".

2. The Spanish article is even worse. It's much shorter and has only two references, one of which is a dead link. I suppose the second source (in French, with no link; ref 5 in the English version) is fine as long as it actually says that, although I can't verify it. Maybe saying "no" reliable sources was an exaggeration.

3. Google sites (ref 1) is not a reliable source for anything, especially people.

4. Ref 2 appears to be a direct copy of a no longer existing Frech Wikipedia article.

5. Ref 4 is to a website dedicated to Holocaust denial. I do not consider Holocaust denial organizations to be reliable sources on anything, including Holocaust denial.

6. Just in general, I don't believe that this person is especially notable.

--AnSq (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed dud sources. That leaves a book that I have not read. Searching news looks plausible, until I clicked and realized that his name was often in the comments section, not in the news story. The third hit I got on a news google search for his name was AgoraVox, and even there he is in the comments, not in the "article" about two minor anti-Semites. Many claims now in the article, such as "is a professor" I could not source. Given that he is French, possible he once taught (was a professeur i.e. was a teacher) in some sort of school, I could not find where; I can find no university affiliation. He seems to be little-known a garden variety crank.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 20 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 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sole mention of his name that I have found so far in a reliable news source is in a blog on Le Monde discussing a petition opposing the Gayssot Act, where his name is mentioned in a list of what Le Monde calls "Holocaust deniers" who have signed the petition.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FRINGE subject with no evidence of significant mainstream coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riky Rick[edit]

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

Okay so I put a prod up but it seems some refs were added (though one of them not reliable), I still can't find notability in this guy. Wgolf (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 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 04:37, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. Matt Lowe[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being mayor of a small (less than 15k people) in Louisiana. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and no evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An historical figure who left the mayor's office 95 years ago; started the city-owned utility plant and was a long-time county official after that. Only a few sources are available. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayor of what is a pretty small town today and must have been much smaller when he was around. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question this Response. This person moved to delete four Minden mayor articles at 14:39 or 14:40 on March 11. He could not have read and considered each article in such a short time frame. He also copied the same reason for deletion for all four articles. Two of the articles are placeholder articles. There is more on the Lowe article, but other sources are off-line. He comes under local politician, and the size of the city is not a factor.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to me, I do hope you're not suggesting I acted in bad faith. You might care to check out my user profile before you make such intimations. If by "placeholder article" you mean a WP:STUB, then so what? Stubs are perfectly acceptable, but they have to be about subjects which are notable in the first place. And yes, the size of a town is absolutely relevant to the notability of its officials if they're only notable for being officials of the town. I reiterate, there is absolutely nothing notable about this man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to meet the minimal level of references based on GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
Keep Meets GNG guidelines. Further guidelines unnecessary. He doesn't have to meet the Additional Criteria. See the guidelines: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." i.e. GNG. There appears to be a campaign to digitally exclude from history the mayors of small American cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep

Carolein Smit[edit]

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 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 04:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the current version of the article is terrible, she is an artist who has had a major exhibition of 60 of her sculptures at the Kunsthal, a respected art museum in Rotterdam. That makes her notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also coverage of her in a book called Contemporary Ceramics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article, adding several new references. I believe that she meets WP:ARTIST as a result of solo exhibitions at major museums. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Cullen328. WordSeventeen (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Although it's possible that this article was originally COI-generated,~~ Having an item in the Victoria and Albert Museum (acquired in 2010), and a beautiful one at that, certainly presents an international notability. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: She actually has three pieces in the V&A Museum: [54]. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems that that the article was started by a new editor acting in good faith at a Wikipedia Women's Edit-a-thon, and I see no evidence of a COI. The editor signed up at Wikipedia:Meetup/Morgantown/ArtAndFeminism, and created this article minutes later. It is unlikely that an editor in West Virginia has a COI regarding an artist in Holland. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, thanks Cullen; I thought due to the original relative cluelessness and promotional tone and the fact that it's the only article edited by the user, that it might be the artist herself. Striking that part of my comments. Thanks for expanding, citing, and cleaning up the article -- well done. Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like that crying dog. Pity we can't nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates ... it's probably not free... Hafspajen (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn: per the above arguments. Many thanks, Cullen, you are such a brilliant editor.

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

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

The result was no consensus. There doesn't appear to be agreement on the rather subjective question of whether the sources provided push the subject of the article past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd D. Culbertson, Jr.[edit]

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

Only claim to fame is being mayor of a small Louisiana town. No online reliable sources available, and based on the titles of the other sources, there does not appear to be any deep coverage beyond the passing mentions you'd expect in local newspapers regarding a mayor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Local politician. Fully sourced with NINE newspaper references. Left office 72 years ago. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does "fully sourced" mean exactly? Yes, it's easy to verify he was a mayor, but it's also easy to verify who was the class president of (name) Highschool in 2004. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayor of what is a pretty small town today and must have been much smaller when he was around. No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question this Response. This person moved to delete the three previous articles on Minden mayors, all at 14:39 time on March 11. He moved against the Culbertson article at 14:40. He could not have possibly read the article in this time frame. He gave the same response for deleting all four articles. However, the Culbertson article is fully sourced, not a placeholder article as are the previous three. It has ten newspaper sources and 24 total sources, well beyond what is required for sources on local politicians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Size of city is not a factor for a mayor. It comes under local politicians.Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're referring to me, I do hope you're not suggesting I acted in bad faith. You might care to check out my user profile before you make such intimations. If by "placeholder article" you mean a WP:STUB, then so what? Stubs are perfectly acceptable, but they have to be about subjects which are notable in the first place. And yes, the size of a town is absolutely relevant to the notability of its officials if they're only notable for being officials of the town. I reiterate, there is absolutely nothing notable about this man. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Billy Hathorn. I can't accept arguments for deletion based on the size of the town or the sources being available only in print. I especially can't accept an argument for deletion based on the town being smaller in the 1940s because total world population was smaller then by a factor of about three. I especially can't accept an argument for deletion based on the titles of admittedly unread sources. James500 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Standard local politician meeting GNG, offline resources are fine. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 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 05:51, 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 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the article itself describes Minden as small shows that it is not significant enough to grant mayors de facto notability. He just does not pass the notability requirements for mayors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. There are some forty sources. This easily passes with proper references for local politicians. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All either genealogical stuff or local stuff you'd expect to find on any local office-holder anywhere. Still no notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The sources may be local; the rules do not say they have to be in out-of-town newspapers. There is a considerable amount of material on him, or this article could not have been pieced together. Billy Hathorn (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, does not need to meet Additional Criteria, though it might. I haven't evaluated that. Stop dissing small towns and hurting people's feelings. Small town folk are people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite if kept I was asked by the author of the article, ~~who I do not know,~~ to comment on the AfD. It seems that it's content and sources are largely of genealogical value, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia article. If it's kept, it should be rewritten to exclude the findagrave.com sources (i.e., content is generally added by contributors, and there's no editorial control), which are not reliable sources, and limit the extent to which primary records from ancestry.com are used. I would also recommend stating and citing the information from the obit, like any other source, rather than saying "the obituary says" unless there's a reason to question the obituary. It seems that there's marginal notability.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck out a part, I don't know him/her, but I just realized that I made a comment on another article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The original article from June 6, 2009, was 4,400 bytes and was so sketchy that it did not even have Mr. Culbertson's dates of birth and death. The rewritten work is now 26,500 bytes. It is not possible to rewrite this: it has been vastly rewritten in the last three weeks. It cannot be redirected anywhere, as it is lengthy now and would not fit under another article. The more sources found, 45 in all, the more interesting the biography became in its preparation. The key point is that he is notable as a local politician with many sources found. All the sources were put together like a puzzle in the composition of this article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm not sure that stating that the article should stay because of it's size - if the article expansion is based upon unreliable sources. It would probably be better to revert to that earlier version and either find reliable sources for the uncited content or remove it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the use of genealogy sources is really bad here. In some cases the link just goes to search results, often it's to family tree information on ancestry (not even to primary records, which would still be an issue, but at least based upon sources with some reliability) or rootsweb, and then there's reliance on findagrave. I've done a lot of genealogy work, I wouldn't use any of these for genealogy sources, which has a looser standard than an encyclopedia article. I've tagged a bunch of poor sources.
I'm going to remove all of the poor sources and see if what remains might be salvageable as an article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've removed most of the content from these sources - I left a cn tag for the information about two of the wives and the birth of his son. I made some edits and put info that starts veering off-topic into notes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work here. I was trying to fill in the citation needed sections but ran into an edit conflict. The siblings in the second paragraph are Floyd Jr.'s siblings, not his father's siblings. Floyd, Sr., lived from 1879 to 1958. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source other than ancestry.com for that? I'm not sure that you're aware, but the link that you provided goes to a page that was built by ancestry.com users. Yes, it's likely based upon primary sources, but there are issues in extrapolation of that data, that's why encyclopedia articles look to secondary sources for reliable sources. Genealogical data quality, particularly by individual contributors vs. trained genealogists, can be quite poor in some cases, and for that reason met with suspicion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the brothers and sisters are listed in the obituaries of both parents of Floyd Culbertson, Jr. Billy Hathorn (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting away from the purpose of this page, I'll post the response on your talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:02, 28 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. Michig (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Sunters[edit]

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

No evidence to suggest significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Key word is "significant". Furthermore, the single listed source links to 500 error. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Link to single source just needed to be corrected. significant independent coverage in reliable sources is subjective and could be used as an argument to keep this entry to help those who might want to out more about her when cannot find her elsewhere..Google did return 43 search results. Article just needs to be improved and expanded upon. len (talk) 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 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 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lengthy article about her career in The Herald at the time of her death called her "one of her generation's stalwarts of Scottish theatre." The current version of the article over-emphasizes her minor TV roles. She was best known as a stage actress. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codrin Arsene[edit]

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

This person clearly does not meet the notability standard EnterBit232 WR (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources consist either of Arsene's own columns or quotations of Arsene's own views. What is glaringly absent is the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" demanded by WP:BASIC, and so we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 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 04:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arsene has written one article in a peer reviewed publication (well, I am being generous and assuming it is peer reviewed, I am not positve). That is no where near passing the notability guidelines for academics, and his work comes no where near the notability guidelines for writers in general either. No clear passing of any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Race In The City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable race/event. Unable to locate any reliable sources to confirm this event's notability.

The forum/blog posts (non-RS) that do turn up on searching for it suggest that the event was only run for a year or two at most, around 2005. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 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 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triple marathon[edit]

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

Seems like this article has 2 subjects, neither one seems notable:

One subject is a Rainforest Foundation fundraiser - no reliable sources, link to the program is dead. Rainforest Foundation has its own article, if the fundraiser is noteworthy it should probably be discussed there.
Second Subject is a man who completed 3 marathons in 5 weeks for cancer charities, seems like a clear case of WP:ONEVENT even if the two linked sources satisfy GNG (I don't think they do: one is one them is just a slideshow). Fyddlestix (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:41, 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 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a term used in general, and the 2 instances of use are not significant. By the way, didn't some man recently complete 7 marathons in one week, including one on every continent? --do ncr am 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Experience Required[edit]

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

Unsourced show from nearly ten years ago with no indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 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 04:31, 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Beach USA[edit]

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

No sources. No indication of independent notability. Seemingly not being shown at present. Greykit (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or look for sources? seems easier to delete than to look for sources? IrishTV (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Citations are available, I don't think deletion is warranted. I've added the imdb link and a news reference in this revision. Also searching in the TLD ".ie" yields a few more examples. --George100 (talk) 13:58, 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 04:31, 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J1 – Summer in the Sun[edit]

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

Once-off show with no coverage independent of the network. Greykit (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 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 04:31, 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. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Party (TV programme)[edit]

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

Once-off show from nearly ten years ago. Completely unsourced. No indication of notability. Greykit (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 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 04:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to Sleep[edit]

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

No indication of independent notability. Not even at the correct title if what it claims is true. Greykit (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 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 04:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to presenter's article. No redirect, as no indication that such would be accurate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Broadcast (TV series)[edit]

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

Sourced only to the network's website. No indication of independent notability. Greykit (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 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 04:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sprint (software)[edit]

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

Originally prodded by me with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement." Deprodded by creator w/out explanation, subsequent edits don't seem to address the concern sufficiently, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, SPA contribution, ordinary paid spam pattern (add to comparison, add page, vanish.) –Be..anyone (talk) 02:55, 19 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 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria. Cinteotl (talk) 09:04, 27 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) 08:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kilbey[edit]

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

I wish him all the best but this singer-songwriter currently falls short of our notability requirements for musicians. Moreover, it's clear that the article's author is either Michael Kilbey himself or someone closely associated with him. Pichpich (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 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 04:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is lacking in reliable sources and does not demonstrate that the subject meets our notability requirements, either the specific ones for musicians of the general ones. —C.Fred (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Weber In Old Town[edit]

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

Non-notable television program which aired only in one market; fails WP:TVSHOW. Blackguard 07:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN local TV show. Article created by COI. reddogsix (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demote to stub: I was going to suggest it be merged to Ted Weber but that article was deleted last night. As IMDb no longer accepts local programs, this is the only place this show could be recognized. The show itself isn't all that notable, but the guests that appeared on it are. Fuddle (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the show is not notable why should it be kept? As far as the guests being notable, how is this important? Notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Weber, I identified one nicely detailed article about Ted Weber's broadcasting career; that article mentions this show in passing. Nina A. Koziol, "Hollywood And Vines: Ted Weber Once Rubbed Elbows With The Rich And Famous, But Now His Streator Garden Is The Star", Chicago Tribune, September 6, 1998. Unfortunately, neither I nor anyone else was able to come up with any other similarly detailed articles, and Ted Weber was accordingly deleted. If he's not notable, I don't see how this show can be. Mention could be added to Streator, Illinois#Museums and historical buildings about his house and gardens, which sources identify as a significant local attraction, but I couldn't find a basis for any more detailed Wikipedia coverage of his broadcasting activities. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:02, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage (TV series)[edit]

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 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 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Customs (TV series)[edit]

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (and a cursory mention once elsewhere). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 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 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garda ar Lár[edit]

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

Once-off documentary sourced only to the network's website (the one possibly independent source refers to an event that happened in the 1970s, not the documentary itself). The incidents discussed, if notable, can easily be covered in the relevant articles. Greykit (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 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 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 no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian de la Cortina[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film director and actor, which makes no credible claim to passing WP:CREATIVE and relies entirely on a single reference to a community weekly newspaper (thus not satisfying WP:GNG either.) In addition, the article contains a surprising level of wholly unsourced personal detail (including the names of his parents, wife and kids, until I stripped those as an unsourced WP:BLPNAME violation), intimate and otherwise unverifiable enough that WP:COI editing by someone who knows the subject personally is by far the likeliest explanation. It's certainly possible that he might qualify to keep a well-sourced article, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but as written this has all the hallmarks of being a promotional piece about a person who aspires to attain notability in the future, rather than an encyclopedia article about a person who's already there. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a 2008 article in La Presse[55]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:10, 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 03:09, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Para Con[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 21:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article's tone and style are problems, but considering the amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG we might think it more a matter for clean-up than for deletion. 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

But when you check Google News, you see only 24 hits (13, in effect), while the 16k normal Google hits boil down to a mere 120 hits. The Banner talk 02:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Are you invoking GHITS? It explains "...a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized..." and "the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number." We do not expect a Pensacola festival to be covered by Times of London and WP:N does not say we need hundreds or even dozens of citations to satisfy inclusion criteria. WP:ORG is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see that this kind of reasoning is never or at least seldom used when discussing a non-USA subject. The Banner talk 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:(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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 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 03:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does the article need clean-up? Yes. Does it need footnotes instead of a list of citations? Of course. Should an editor go in with a chainsaw and prune those giant lists of names? You bet. But does the article cross the verifiability and notability thresholds with cited in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. Also yes, and that's why it should be kept. (And then fixed.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:31, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by 4Minute[edit]

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

This list seems on the cusp (well over the cusp) of excessive. For example, Best Dressed Singer, Super Rookie for the month of August, and the Bonsang Award in the Style Icon Awards. The only win that seems notable is the Gaon Chart award, the Mnet would be if they had actually won, but it was only a nomination. So really what we have is an exhaustive list to showcase one notable award that was won. Also of note, allkpop.com (of which fifteen sources are) is a self disclosed unreliable source (in their words "allkpop is a celebrity gossip site which publishes rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts. Information on this site may or may not be true and allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims". I won't elaborate on the use of twitter as a source, it should speak for itself.

Long story short, in my mind, this page is trying to make something out of nothing, trying to say that 27 notable awards were won, when really only one was. kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in here that needs to be mentioned outside of the 4Minute article, and no editorial content needs to be merged to accomplish that. That it's sourced to allkpop.com means it's also a BLP violation.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to main article if it is short: Awards should be ones that are actually given to the band, not editorial superlatives like "Allkpop's band of the month". The weekly ones like Inkigayo are similar to when a TRL-like show lists their top music videos in a countdown for the week, and has nothing to do with whether they charted nationally. Aren't there some Golden Disk level awards as with List of awards and nominations received by Psy? -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC), updated 01:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've modified the lists so the Bonsangs show up in pink as they are equivalent to being nominated or a finalist. The group actually receives something for that, and are then considered for the Daesang (grand prize). -AngusWOOF (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with the overall direction of this discussion, a few places I think you guys may be off base: the Gaon Chart award is not particularly notable or a BFD; it's new and there are a billion new awards ceremonies every year. It's just another excuse to film a TV show and create more fluff for the gossip media to talk about. The Seoul Music and Golden Disk Awards are the ones on this list legitimately considered prestigious within Korea, and the Rookie Award is considered a very big deal (I mean the real award, not the Inkigayo thing or some Allkpop mess). Not sure deleting this article would accomplish much, as a deeper discussion needs to be held to address the underlying issues. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge per Angus, but I also second Shinyang's comments about a need for a list of awards that grant notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:08, 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 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've decided it is, after all, best to delete this article, as any attempts to trim it down and keep unsourced and not-real-award material off it is futile. The Allkpop awards and other such garbage have to be cleaned off too frequently for this article to ever stay in accordance with any kind of Wikipedia standards. Fans will just continue to add whatever they want, and harass editors who try to remove it. Korea has so very, very many awards at this point that they are nearly meaningless anyway. Unless the list of allowed awards can be trimmed to a significant few and explicitly stated in an official document, and the article locked to prevent, well, pretty much anyone from adding anything without admin approval, this article (and the others like it) will never be acceptable. Shinyang-i (talk) 06:48, 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. There is enough evidence that this is notable and encyclopedic. However, moving it to Buddhists in the US Military seems prudent. UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Buddhist Americans[edit]

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

While significant coverage has been given to Buddhist chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, and about a single chapel located at the United States Air Force Academy I did not find any significant coverage about the military history of Buddhists in the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, this article appears to be largely based upon WP:SYNTH, as the subject itself is not notable. Individually verified pieces of content are better off in articles about chaplains in the United States Armed Forces, or about the Air Force Academy, but it appears to be too soon for this article to exist as a stand alone article. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence that the subject per se (MilHist of BudAms) was treated in scholarly sources. Therefore the article is WP:SYNTH. Clearly, any history may be cross-sectioned by arbitrary selection criteria; such as "History of people of ages 20-40", but one needs independent refs to establish the validity of such a narrowed down subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There might be a real topic here, with room to expand this article to deal with the treatment of Buddhist-American soldiers in World War II, and cultural depictions thereof. For example, In Race for Empire: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as Americans during World War II (UC Press, 2011), the author describes the the 1951 film Go for Broke, about the 442nd Infantry Regiment, noting among other things that the film ignored "the Army's actual prohibition of Buddhist chaplains from serving in its ranks" and "represent[ed] religious difference as unproblematic."[56] See also [57] and [58] --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand this AfD. No one is saying that Buddhist have not served in the past, including in the 442nd during World War II. However, the context which those Buddhist have served have not been in the context of their religion, but their race and ethnicity. Thus, why there is a Military history of Japanese Americans article, with numerous reliable sources about Japanese Americans serving during World War II as the primary subject of those sources. However, even the sources mentioned by the above editor are in the context of those individuals as a member of a race and ethnicity and not as a member of a particular faith.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources I noted above deal with the treatment of those soldiers' Buddhism--in WW2, the exclusion of Buddhist chaplains, some pressure to convert to Christianity, burial of killed Buddhist soldiers under crosses. There's a coherent line from "Buddhist chaplains were prohibited in WW2" to "the first Buddhist chaplain was commissioned in 2004" to "the only Buddhist chapel in the United States military is in the basement of the Air Force Academy" that isn't accurately represented if these facts are broken up into three separate articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other points, the first source provided is a fictionalized account of the 442nd during World War II, an not actual accounts. While it is relevant to the movie, it is only indirectly relevant to the history of Buddhist soldiers during World war II, and again the books primary context is the race and ethnicity of the soldier not their faith.

The second source gives a brief description of the funeral of Sadao Munemori, it only briefly touches upon Buddhist burial rights during the service. Thus not really significant coverage.

The third source only briefly mentions Buddhist chaplains, in a non-significant coverage manner. Furthermore, the context is more about Japanese American internment than about the religion of the members of the 442nd.

It appears that there might be content to add to the chaplain article, but insufficient to support a stand alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added content that specifically addresses issues of Buddhism regarding Nissei troops in WWII, and is from serious non-fiction accounts from reputable academic publishers. Hope that resolves the issue. While it is not incumbent on a deletionist to improve every article, I think it poor form to spend literally more time AfDing an article that it took me to glance at GoogleBooks and add several serious cited points. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at one of the sources which was added.

Duncan Ryuken Williams; Tomoe Moriya (25 March 2010). Issei Buddhism in the Americas. University of Illinois Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-252-09289-3. Race eventually trumped religion as nearly 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry - whether Buddhist, Shinto, or Christina, whether Japanese or American citizens, including babies who could hardly be considered a national security threat...

The book itself shows that the main context of the passage is of Japanese Americans who were serving, with Buddhism being one of the characteristics, not of Buddhist Americans who were serving, with their Japanese American ethnicity being one of the characteristics.

Furthermore, the book's primary subject isn't Buddhist military history in the United States, it is about Buddhism among the Issei in the Americas (not just the United States).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (originator): I dispute that this falls under WP:SYNTH. This is not about Group X being in the Army, and Group X coincidentally happening to be Buddhists. The article explicitly discusses the accommodations made in the US military for Buddhist servicemembers. These news articles specifically discuss the concept "Buddhists in the US military", and there are various mentions in books and museum websites of the issues arising from Buddhist Japanese-Americans serving in the US military. I'll go add in some more content, but I think this is a really pedantic jab at what is clearly an encyclopedic subject and treatment. We have parallel articles for Judaism, Sikhism, etc. and we have books and articles specifically discussing the experiences of Buddhists in the American military. Frankly, I think this AFD is a conspicuously poor use of editing time. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case than there should be a Christians military history in the United States. While the sources do talk about Buddhist Japanese Americans, the main context is that they are Japanese Americans not that they are Buddhist. Being Buddhist isn't the defining characteristic which the Japanese Americans were discussed in the sources, therefore to imply context that does not exist to the sources IMHO is improper. It was one part of being Japanese in the United States armed forces.

If this is the case than there should be a Catholic military history in the United States, etc. However, unless there are sources whose primary subject is X religion in the U.S. Military and their history of service, than it isn't proving that the subject of this AfD is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the historical section regarding World War II can be seen as a duplication of content that falls more within the scope of the article Japanese American service in World War II, which is the actual context which the context is written about, not specifically the Japanese American servicemembers' religion. The sources used for the section are more about them being Japanese American servicemembers who happen to be Buddhist than Buddhist Americans who happen to be Japanese Americans. Even the sole source that has Buddhism in the sources title preferences that with issei, the term for first generation Japanese American immigrants.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources established are secondary and givens significant coverage to the subject. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:01, 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 // 00:07, 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 03:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change title to Buddhists in the US Military It does seem a relevant topic, and there are clearly some sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Bunelik[edit]

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

Nonnotable survivor of Nazi death camp. I gave the article creator a reasonable amount of time to find good references. Unfortunately what we got is insufficient. THe only one ref which talks about this person in some detail is a local newspaper, half of which is a long quote from his memoir book. From it we only know that he survived death camp (without any notable activity besides an escape attempt) and also that he is a good teacher. Here are the references:

КОВАЛЕНКО, Світлана (2 December 2010). "Ми чуємо вас, директоре". Запорізька правда. Запорізька правда. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
The only reasonable ref, described above
Стась, А. (4 May 2012). "КОМИССАРЫ УМИРАЮТ ПЕРВЫМИ". Молодая Гвардия. Форум "Великая Отечественная война". Retrieved 20 Feb 2015.
A f.uorom entry with a copy of an old Soviet article, an interview with Bunelik about another Soviet hero; nearly nothing about Bunelik himself
"ЗАГАДКИ ЧЕЛОВЕЧЕСКОЙ ПСИХИКИ: ВЫСШАЯ СТОЙКОСТЬ ДУХА". Паранормальные новости. http://paranormal-news.ru/. 20 January 2014. Retrieved 15 February 2015.
A cut-and-paste of the previous in some kookery website
Бунелик, Василь (1966). Солдати Малої Війни (Soldiers of the Little War). Львів: Каменяр.
Bunelik's 1966 memoir book
Thompson, Leslie (22 February 2015). "Mauthausen Survivor: Vasily Bunelik". Bunelik. Retrieved 22 February 2015.
A promo webpage for the book at a personal webpage
"Храбрость храбрость как личностное качество - Документ". Retrieved 2 March 2015.
A student's essay, basically cut and pastes of several episodes of courageous men from all over around, from a Russian essay download website.

Conclusion: All refs but one are not good enough for wikipedia. A single newspaper eulogy about a good teacher is insufficent for a wikipedis article. Sorry. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria. Nakon 01:14, 22 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 03:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only local coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 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. Not notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Dodillet[edit]

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

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per DN coverage, not usual for these kind of writers. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, widely cited by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable, solid coverage, invalid rationale for deletion ("Not notable" does not mean anything, you have to explain WHY you actually consider the subject "not notable"). Cavarrone 05:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petra Östergren, nominated for deletion by the same editor. Yet again I'd argue that Dodillet is relevant according to our general notability guidelines not mainly because of her academic credentials (though she's closer than Östergren), but because of the role she's had in the Swedish debate regarding the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services. Mediearkivet ("the media archive", which collects articles from a big number of newspapers in the Nordic countries) gives plenty of evidence, if one can access it, and even though the Google news search the nomination automatically links to misses most texts, it hints at the fact that she's definitely quoted in notable publications well outside the academic community. /Julle (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added another reference from an interview with her about the Swedish prostitution law. She is active as a researcher, presenter at conferences, and regularly gives interviews about this controversial topic. There is a good bit I can find with a google search biased to Lexington, KY. If we look behind paywalls and in better search engines we'll find even more. But with what we have now she easily meets the notability guideline. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep J 1982 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy Deleted per G7 (author requested deletion) Nakon 03:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chalupsky[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). -- haminoon (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 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. TNot notable isn't a valid reason for deletion, That aside clear keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Östergren[edit]

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

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Vintage Feminist (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs attention for sure, better sourcing for sure. Bot notable it is, per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Petra Östergren was at the heart of the debate regarding the Swedish Sex Purchase Act in the 00s, a law that criminalizes the act of buying sex in Sweden. It's no accident she's mentioned a couple of times in the article Prostitution in Sweden. Her 2006 book sv:Porr, horor och feminister gained extensive attention, leading to nationwide controversy and debate (example from major Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter here: Kajsa Ekis Ekman, Petra Östergren). The Google news search links to basically all the important Swedish newspapers (Aftonbladet, Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet, Göteborgs-Posten and so on), as well as to a number notable international newspapers (Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Le Monde, Libération); a search in the Swedish Mediearkivet ("the media archive") gives many more hits than the few found by that particular Google search. The argument for deletion simply states "not notable", not explaining why this would be the case. It's true that her academic credentials wouldn't merit inclusion on their own, but that's not why she's included in the encyclopedia from the very beginning. Her role as an academic is not the center of her public persona. /Julle (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid rationale for deletion: "Not notable" does not mean anything, you have to explain WHY you actually consider the subject "not notable", and others have already correctly pointed that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. Cavarrone 12:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media considers her an expert on the topic of prostitution reform legislation. Ample media to be verify information about her and her expertise on this topic. Easily meets notability guideline when using a search engine biased toward Lexington, KY searches. Would find more behind paywalls and with a better search engine. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 12:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep J 1982 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Globe[edit]

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

Non-notable contest without any WP:RS. Hits seems to be sites related to contest without external verification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Company running it IMC Corporation also does not seem notable. ― Padenton |☎ 19:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage found to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 08:24, 29 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. Wrong venue. Please see WP:MERGE for guidance on how to propose mergers. AfD is not the right place. Michig (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of 21st century propaganda[edit]

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

Another case where @Hendrick 99: might have gone too far and certainly too fast in splitting articles. This is now a split of History of Propaganda which in turn was split from Propaganda, and all within half an hour and without any prior discussion.
Now I'm not certain that this mere collection of examples warrants an article on its own. For now, it should rather be merged back to History of propaganda or even to where it came from, to Propaganda. PanchoS (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article helps to organise Wikipedia's coverage of the topic much better than the original, overloaded article on Propaganda did. It's important to consider the readers' comfort in navigating articles. KEEP this article. Hendrick 99 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (w/ caveat) Merge, but several of the claims in this article are missing sources, and WP:RS should be found or the claims deleted. ― Padenton |☎ 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, parent article is close to suggested size stated at WP:SIZERULE, therefore, this can be seen as a legitimate sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the same content is already in other article. This seems to be an undiscussed page split. Red Harvest (talk) 20:42, 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moran (writer)[edit]

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

A biography teased out of a single book review and a primary source reference to the subject's own publication. No evidence of importance. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We require multiple sources. The NYT coverage is a good start, but what else is there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.

"We require multiple sources. The NYT coverage is a good start, but what else is there?"

Well, a bunch of stuff:

Peter Genovese "Midgetville, two cemeteries, one asylum and the Death Burger: Weird N.J. hits the road". NJ.com[59] 10/27/14 (the web site for The Star-Ledger and multiple other NJ newspapers).
Jim Beckerman "Garden State Gothic: What the Department of Tourism Doesn't Want to Show You, These Guys Will" The Record. Bergen County, NJ 01 Nov 1997 p y01. (1054 words)
Dan Day "New Jersey weirdness sells abnormally well" "The Sunday Patriot - News". Harrisburg, Pa. 15 Feb 2004: J01 (An AP Story of 800+ words that ran in multiple newspapers in both the US and Canada.)
Libby Copeland. "Weird N.J., Celebrating The Odd State of Mind; Twice a Year, the Magazine Uncovers Something Uncanny Around the Corner" Washington Post 30 June 2004. C01. Word count: 2057
Elaine D'Aurizio. "Wizards of weird ; Magazine's editors expand a Jersey original into a nationwide quest" The Record. Bergen County, N.J. 03 Oct 2004: F01. 1534 words.
Marshall McKnight. "A Bizarro Business Goes Nationwide". NJBIZ. 17.39 (Sep 27, 2004) p. 18.

Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR #3 3.The person...played a major role in co-creating, a significant...collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Samuel J. Howard is correct. And there are plenty more sources where those came from.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and those listed above all establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Weird N.J.. 99% of the refs focus on the magazine as their topic, not the founders. An organization may be notable, but its founders do not automatically "inherit" the same notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 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 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources found prove notability. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:02, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Shahryar Noon[edit]

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No substantive coverage in reliable sources, and no real claim being made to passing WP:NPOL — while the article states that he's a politician, it fails to state what political position, if any, he actually holds. Also probable WP:COI, if you compare the creator's username (User:Ptijalalpur) to the topic's political party (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, or "PTI") and the region where he's active (Shujabad and Jalalpur Pirwala). Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 29 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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Pulse conference[edit]

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

No indication of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 05:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This appears to be IBM's answer to the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference. Sources do exist. It looks like rather bloggish coverage by IT journalists. This article on "IBM to put Power Systems on SoftLayer cloud menu" is typical. How notable is the conference, as a venue for announcements like that? – Margin1522 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:36, 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 00:44, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Macrovirus (fiction)[edit]

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

"Macrovirus" is apparently a made-up concept. The article gives a list of things in fiction that are allegedly examples of macroviruses, but there are no sources to show that "macrovirus" is a recognized concept even in fiction. So far as I'm aware the term "macrovirus" is actually used only in a single episode of Star Trek: Voyager. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nomination says there is no real defined concept, just examples of fantasy and sci-fi monsters that have some viral aspect.Borock (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 29 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 Gwar. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Animated Tales Of GWAR[edit]

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

I just did a quick Internet search of the subject of this article, but based on the results, I couldn't find good enough results for it, so I'm going to assume that this was written based on original research. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i watched the cartoon Gojira4eva (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, nothing but a plot summary written by someone form their own watching of ti (WP:OR of course). Guy (Help!) 22:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gwar. I think this only needs a brief mention there. There are several sources discussing it, but not in sufficient depth to justify a separate article, e.g. [60], [61], [62]. --Michig (talk) 10:41, 21 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 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Gwar, per Michig's rationale above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gwar, per Michig. APerson (talk!) 02:02, 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 Speedied (G5) by Nakon. –Davey2010^Talk 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Susanteo (Singer)[edit]

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

Singer that falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 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. No arguments fro deletion, including from the nominator. AfD is not the place to propose a merge.Michig (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure and economics[edit]

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

While a number of the article splits @Hendrick 99: accomplished yesterday are fine, I propose to merge this rather artificial topic back to Infrastructure.
The introductory sentence says it all: "This article delineates the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues." Indeed it isn't a coherent subject and therefore prone to remain an orphan article forever. Also, sub-sections refer to engineering and to the environment respectively, and therefore certainly don't belong here. And finally, all infrastructure is closely related to economics by definition.
So other ways of splitting the original article may be considered, but this way is inappropriate. PanchoS (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to relieve the page Infrastructure, which was over-crowded, and full of information that is better covered in this format. Furthermore, don't use inflammatory words like 'artificial. It's not an artificial topic, but it's not worth putting in the infrastructure article either, as it's way too off-topic for that. KEEP this article.Hendrick 99 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hendrick 99: I understand very well what the purpose of this article is, and sensible splitting of longish articles is perfectly fine. But there are always many possible ways to split a page, and this particular way seems inappropriate. No matter how you want to put it: the title definitively is artificial and "the relationship between infrastructure and various economic issues" is arbitrary. Even more, as the title already suggests (see WP:AND), this attempt at compiling the more economic aspects of infrastructure, constitutes WP:OR. And as I already stated, the conceptualization is just wrong. If we had an scholarly referenced article on "Economics of Infrastructure" or "Infrastructure in finance" that might work out, but would in any case require far more than just renaming the article. Again: let's merge this back and then discuss possible splits on Talk:Infrastructure. --PanchoS (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want, I'm not going to stop you, I couldn't if I tried. On Wikipedia, idiocy always prevails.Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that was a bit overly-raged. I see your point PanchoS, and lets try and fix this without arguing. I still think something needs to be done about this ridiculously long set of content, and perhaps the content of this specific split is just absolutely useless. I think it might be best to remove it from wikipedia altogether. Cheers! Hendrick 99 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and possibility split. There is notable information here, that is perhaps too detailed for overview of infrastructure. However, the title is wrong in that its ambiguous - it tells you that the article is about two subjects but not the way they relate. A possible solution would be to split it into two articles along the lines of Infrastructure finance and Economic impact of infrastructure - there are already a number articles/redirects that being with Economic impact of .... Jonpatterns (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Article was created by a confirmed sock of Natly 88 and is deleted per CSD G5. JodyB_talk 02:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Domani (actor)[edit]

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

Actor who falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Should be Bryan Domani which is currently protected. The subject appears to be well known in Indonesia as a singer. Its a brand new article so we should give the editors a chance to provide references and demonstrate notability. -- haminoon (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (theme)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Not sure if I should have speedied this, but it doesn't clearly fall under A7. Smileguy91^{Spread the knowledge!} 18:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 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 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found; song does not appear to be independently notable. Not a plausible search term, either, as "Quicksilver (song)". Gongshow talk 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. In agreement with Gongshow. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Wooley[edit]

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

Claim to fame is being insurance commissioner of Lousiana. References are primarily links to elections results; no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Well referenced, clearly notable per wiki guideleines. Royal Mate1 19:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Statewide elected official. Well-sourced. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:41, 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 00:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 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 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Val Demings[edit]

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

Claims to fame are being chief of police of Orlando, Florida, and an unsuccessful candidate for state legislature; does not meet WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Has significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Plus, WP:GNG > WP:NPOL. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incline to agree that the biographical entry may not have seen its last use and would only have to be reconstructed if Ms Demmings returns to the political arena in the 2016 cycle. It is not quite candid to assert that her only claim to political prominence was 'as an unsuccessful candidate for the state legislature' when she had support for a bid for the United States Congress only 2 cycles ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher H Walker (talk • contribs) 15:18, 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 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mr. Guye. GNG > POL.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See [63][64][65][66][67][68], and all the sources in the article. Although almost a WP:BLP1E case, there are multiple events that the subject is notable for. Clearly meets WP:BASIC due to the coverage in reliable sources, and below WP:BIO#Additional criteria, it says: Failure to meet these criteria (in this case, WP:NPOL) is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included. Esquivalience ^t 00:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief of police of a large enough department to make her notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 26 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 // 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Vista Park[edit]

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

Article, relying entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Google Maps, own website, etc.) with not a shred of reliable source coverage, of a neighborhood association in a city of approximately 130K. Nearly every city of this size has a dozen or more such local committees — so organizations at this highly localized level of activity are not granted an automatic entitlement to keep an unsourced or primary-sourced article just because they exist, but rather need to demonstrate enough reliable source coverage to get them over WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. Further, this has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2011, with almost no appreciable improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know what happened to this article or where it went wrong. The article clearly started as an article about the place, per the title. Somewhere along the line, the article morphed into an article about the non-notable neighbourhood association that governs it. I think the place might be notable, but the organisation isn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked it out - this edit changed the context (back in 2012). From that point forward, the article has been about the association, rather than the place. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, though even if we converted this back to an article about the geographic neighbourhood instead of the organization, I'd still argue that every individual neighbourhood in a city of 130K doesn't really need its own independent article — especially if the best we could do for sourcing would likely be the local community weekly paper. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100%. As I said, it might be notable but I couldn't really find anything substantive for the place either. I wouldn't have a problem with deletion, then, just want to be clear about what we're deleting. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:06, 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 00:09, 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.