Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 March	24 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 Speedily deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement. Michig (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkland Fire Company[edit]

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

Article is entirely unreferenced and written in the form of a flowery essay, not an encyclopedia article. No evidence this volunteer fire department in a borough of 1,622 people has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as essay on just another fire station. Mangoe (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Googling "Parkland Fire Company" yields 7 news results, 4000+ web, umpteen images... There must be much more in newspaper archives; fifty plus years of the stations existence was during the time before the internet. AfD is not cleanup. Incidentally, the article was about to have a WP:GOCE copyedit; that's on hold due to this AfD (diff) -Arb. (talk) 00:02, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Copyvio from www.parklandfire.com/history. That site has been up since 2003 and the first edit to this article, back in 2007, looked pretty much like a copypaste job (compare to 2006 version of said webpage). There haven't been any substantial edits since. Even if it wasn't, I don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I can't find any indepth independent sources. Those on Google are incidental mentions; I actually get 9 news results - all pointing to routine reports that 'this fire company attended a fire', and under 4,000 Ghits. It exists, but that doesn't go to show how it's notable. Fuebaey (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as an unambiguous copyright infringement. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:00, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)[edit]

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

Apparently minor clone of last year's 2048 (video game), released a few days ago. The first version of the article was full of bold claims ("described by the Wall Street Journal as 'almost like Candy Crush for math geeks'") which actually applied to the original 2014 game, while studiously avoiding any mention of it. Minus those claims, we have that it might have featured in the second-place entry in a programming forum competition (~~unless that's also talking about the original~~ yes, it looks like that was just lifted from the original 2048 article as well). Fails WP:GNG. McGeddon (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to 2048 (video game) - Why delete when it can be merged..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's just one of hundreds of unremarkable clones of 2048, and doesn't even have a single secondary source. --McGeddon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shit sorry assumed this was a "special edition" .. Haden't realized it was just a clone, DERP I'm losing the plot I think!, Anyway we don't need articles on every single clone of a game, I can't find bugger all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ugh. There are countless forks of the game. Probably hundreds referred to as 'galaxy edition' alone. ― Padenton |☎ 06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 06:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 06:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 06:37, 24 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) 17:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even sure if a redirect is needed. 2048/Threes are one of those overly cloned games on the cheap. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would normally recommend merge for these sorts of things, but a merge would not be worthwhile as there is not a single source in a WP:VG/RS search to confirm even the most trivial of noteworthy relations to the full game. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails WP:GNG, no content to merge and no reason to redirect to 2048. It's just one of hundreds of clones. – The1337gamer (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable clone. A notable original doesn't give inherited notability, and as many above has shown there is next to no grounds to stand on itself too. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:02, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooroll Mills[edit]

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

Pure gobbledygook. None of the sources I checked so much as mentions a "cooroll mill". The only Google Scholar hit for that combination of words was a "booklet for parents of young children with special needs" which doesn't seem relevant to the topic at hand. Huon (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unable to locate any reliable sources, or really any sources at all, talking about this topic. APerson (talk!) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What even is this? — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The author(?)'s Wikipedia page is here, in German. But I have to say that both the content and the references are way over my head. Unless someone from WikiProject Mathematics can translate it for us laymen, I don't think anyone is going to understand it. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From a physics perspective, this is FRINGE at best, and utter gibberish at worst. For example, the sentence "It is constructed as a solid ball with a Schwarzschild radius" makes no sense because everything has a Schwarzschild radius (technically speaking), and other phrases/wikilinks make me think the author is simply trying to MASK the ridiculousness of the premise of creating "rollers" the size of atoms. I would go on, but Huon's summary is sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to be gibberish, because it is completely impossible to determine what is being described, a physical apparatus of some sort, or a thought-experiment. This article is cited in the German page in relation to her work on GUT (theory of everything), which would be theoretical physics. The pronunciation, or origin of "cooroll" is also a mystery. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If it's not mentioned in the sources, it must be some kind of elaborate hoax. Liam987 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the author of the draft left a note at my talk page that apparently was meant for the deletion discussion. I stand by my original assessment. Huon (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that note clarifies what was already obvious -- that the article author is the same "Gudrun Kalmbach H.E." who wrote most of the references (in journals of dubious quality). A serious WP:COI, in other words. -- 120.17.0.71 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable FRINGE physics. -- 120.17.0.71 (talk) 00:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nelda Ramos[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps others can prove me wrong. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep - she has had shows internationally, see here in the Austin and there in Venice, both internationally significant art venues. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added four more sources to the article that I found as well as added the Austin Exhibition photo source listed above. With the various references across several sources the subject now crosses the thresold of notability. I moved the primary sources that were listed at the end of the article to external links since they are primary anyways. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs clean up and more sources, but seems notable. Jooojay (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like good sourcing for an artist working in a non-english-speaking country. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most of the references in the article are primary (by an exhibition space about their own exhibition), dead links (no longer mentioning the subject), or only mentioning the subject very briefly (e.g. the "Not easy togetherness" source). The one exception is the boladenieve site which appears to be both independent and in-depth. And the only exhibits of the artist's performance and works that the article discusses are an exhibit at a private gallery and a piece in a multi-artist show at the Mexic-Arte Museum, which don't seem to rise to the "substantial part of a significant exhibition" or "significant critical attention" clauses of WP:ARTIST. Which is to say, I don't think the article as it is currently written is enough to demonstrate notability. But there are other in-depth and independent sources to be found, for example [1] and [2]. So I think she does pass WP:GNG at least, and possibly also WP:ARTIST, but it would help to add better sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akkoda[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable online store. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Liam987 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Brand new site, no evidence of notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Melotron. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Problem[edit]

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

Long time unotable and unreferenced album Wgolf (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melotron. Not notable by any stretch. Reasonable search term. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian-I just put a prod on a bunch of there other albums/songs that could probably be a redirect also. Wgolf (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Bearian (talk) 18: 08, 27 March 2015 (UTC); Yeah I would put up AFD's for them all but that is probably easier anyway. Wgolf (talk) 18:38, 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) 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Corfield[edit]

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

Couldn't find any significant coverage on her so fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as she only she has 3 film credits. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per Bearian. Only minor roles so far, with the local press coverage you'd expect for a youngster starting out her career. Good luck to her. Dai Pritchard (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-too soon, only one major film listed and unless if shop girl is a major character in Mission Impossible 5....Wgolf (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her roles to date have tended to be very minor. She may well at some time become notable, but she isn't yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 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 Speedy Deleted (G5) by Ponyo. nac –Davey2010^Talk 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nayyar Sultana filmography[edit]

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

Unreferneced filmography with no sources at all Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion is not cleanup and this notable actor has an extensive filmography. --Jakob (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not unreferenced. --Jakob (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The refs were not there when I put this up. (Also they had to be removed then as apparently that's a site that's not allowed for wiki refs) Wgolf (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right. It's the kind of thing that should have an article, but if there aren't sources, there aren't sources. Weak delete. --Jakob (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list is attributed to the following 3 websites as sources: pakmdb.com, mazhar.dk, and pak101.com. Where can one find guidance on the reliability of these sites? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The websites listed in the article aren't even Reliable sources, I can't find evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the websites as as I said above they're not RS. –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Davey2010-I have put prods up on quite a few more of these made by the same user. Wgolf (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corr you've been busy!

–Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice, due to lack of reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the far more comprehensive Nayyar Sultana#Filmography. As her work can be sourced to the films themselves and in HER article provides context and content, we have no need for a separate unsourced article which mostly lists those other persons involved in her films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and if necessary merge as MQS suggests. This should be the default way of handling theses, unless there is too much material to cover in the main article--which will be true only in very exceptional cases. The reader is almost always likely to look for this material in connection with the bio, and is best served by keeping it together. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 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. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Nagy[edit]

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

Random "artist", with no sources attesting notability. What we have so far is this:

A blurb by a co-worker
Some random site
Another random site
More randomness
A blurb from a gallery where he's exhibited
A photo spread hosted on the website of a church that exhibits one of his works
Random
Yet more random
A press release from the church exhibiting his painting
Another random site

So, yeah. I think that just about speaks for itself. One other thing: the two accounts that created this, Robertcaincalin and Marianzoltan, are probably the same user. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to verify notability or sustain an article. Fails general notability. Fails WP:ARTIST. Jbh (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Added signature.Jbh (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication he passes the notability guidelines for creators of works of art.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Adrien[edit]

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

Unsourced, notability is not clearly stated, only ref is notification of his death. Jcmcc450 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are additional sources now, and his importance is obvious from the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved since nomination. (Side note: is there a template for participants in these editathon events to tag the article talk page with? Seems like a lot of them get created on good topics, but are unfinished or clumsily referenced and end up at AfD when they mostly just need polishing.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons stated above. Savvyjack23 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Looks notable to me. Depending on its size the nationla head of an Order might be regarded as equivalent to a bishop, who would automatically be notable (except in finge denominations). Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 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 speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwalader's Ice Cream[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it is best to add sources in this case, company is clearly notable [3], BBC, Another BBC source (this source also mentions the economic effect this store has on the community), and [4]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources - this is a well known brand and it should not be to hard. Valoem has made a good start on this by digging up the BBC links. Artw (talk)
Nomination withdrawn per above, Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing of fingerboard[edit]

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

Contested PROD, WP:NOTHOWTO §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a how-to page. Could be moved to Wikibooks if someone wants to. --Jakob (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nomWgolf (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 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. While the majority of folks suggested delete, it seems this is a more prudent action. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ishita Ganguly[edit]

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

Contested prod by the creator-unotable actress who is too soon Wgolf (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:NACTOR. Ch an der 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, Cant find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it may be too soon, but there are two reliable sources in the external links. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Found multiple relevant news articles from independent reliable sources, which lead me to disagree with Davey2010 specifically regarding WP:GNG: [5] (not referenced), [6] (referenced), [7] (referenced), an interview with Press Trust of India published in two sources [8] (not referenced) and [9] (not referenced). However, all of them were published in July-Sept 2014, after the subject was cast in Shastri Sisters. I could not find sufficient supporting evidence for her prior performances in Bengali TV serials and/or films. Consequently, I agree that WP:NACTOR is not met. Since the subject made her major TV debut as recently as 8 months back, I propose a redirect to Shastri Sisters, preserving history so that future evidence can build upon this information if and when necessary. ~ scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 07:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 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 All. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball team[edit]

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

Simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. The current season hasn't even ended, and it's useless to create a page so far in advance when the schedule and roster, and NBA draft declarations have not been released, and will not be released for several months. Mpejkrm (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of basketball-related deletion discussions. Mpejkrm (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. They all have some verifiable information on the future season e.g. committed recruits, committed opponents, and/or committed early-season tournaments. I'll pre-empt any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, as the policy states: " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Based on past seasons, there is little doubt this upcoming season will take place, and the team will be notable. Deleting would require creating more work to WP:PRESERVE this useful information somewhere else, merely because of a technicality that the current season is not over.—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All When reading through the first item regarding WP:SPECULATION, you'll see all three of the these articles are not speculation, but instead are guaranteed to happen making these articles acceptable to keep. Portions of the schedules have been released and the seasons will definitely occur. Additionally, each article has sourced material and signed, incoming recruits are bound to their National Letter of Intent so it is safe to include them on rosters for next season. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:58 23 March 2015
Keep all per Bagumba's arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Bagumba. These articles are good repositories for the information he mentioned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Kante4 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although you may want to avoid referencing the 2015-16 page as the current year on the general team basketball page until the school year is over (July 1), to avoid confusion with the current still active year of 2014-15....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as above, with the caveat mentioned by Pvmoutside. — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:06, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EffiaSoft[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. No coverage whatsoever. Created bypassing several AfC declines. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Clearly trying to promote there company, Seeing as they've ignored AFC anyway I'm assuming once (if) this gets deleted they'll then recreated this and it'll be one big merry-go-round so think Salting is also a good idea here. –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've added a {{PROD}} on the spam attack vector. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple sources. Most refs are incidental mentions, or not WP:RS, with the only exception being the siliconIndia link.Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Watson[edit]

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

PROD requested but has already been re-created after a prior PROD. No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, no obvious sources beyond match reports. Guy (Help!) 14:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible reference http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Rugby-league-Leicester-Storm-ready-big-kick/story-26205718-detail/story.html Jonpatterns (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RLN and doesn't appear to be notable any other way. Mattlore (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never played at a club or international level that would see him meet WP:RLN. And the sourcing is not such as to amount to meeting the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 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 all. No support to keep. UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Film Critics Society[edit]

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

Also:

Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2000
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2001
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2002
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2003
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2004
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2005
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2006
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2007
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2008
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2009
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2010
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2011
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2012
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2013
Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards 2014

PROD requested as a non-notable organisation lacking credible independent of significance. has already been deleted once via PROD and restored, so has to go to AfD instead. The article has no substantive content other than lists of films. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ORGSIG. Like other small, regional film-critics groups that have been deleted, many of whose members are unpaid amateur critics for penny-shoppers and the like, the Phoenix Film Critics Society is essentially an awards mill whose greatest exposure comes precisely from Wikipedia itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - unable to find in-depth coverage - ~~keep~~ - The Phoenix Film Critics Society is the official association that represents the movie reviewing press members for the State of Arizona -examiner. also korea times us Jonpatterns (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "official" critics' group for an arbitrary geographical location does not confer notability. Nor do press releases promoting films that have won their awards, because that kind of thing happens in every business - just check any trade magazine and you'll see endless references to non-notable awards. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd additionally note that while the pennyshopper reviewer seems no longer to be there, the membership has a retired person, a local-theater blogger, a writer for the amateur-contributor Examiner.com (which itself tells its contributors "this isn't a 'quit your day job' opportunity"), and, mostly, local radio reviewers of uncertain professional payment. Even if one or two of the members have independent notability, notability isn't transferable. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH as it currently stands. This organization's recognitions are routinely reported in periodicals including Arizona Republic, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter, but per the guideline, for the organization itself to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, there needs to be in-depth coverage. For example, one of its co-founders is Dave Ramsey, but I could not find any article detailing the organization's founding. There needs to be more coverage so this topic can be more than "a very brief, incomplete stub", as WP:ORGDEPTH says. Jonpatterns, would you take this into consideration? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'm still not convinced the society isn't notable. However, I am unable to find in depth coverage. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to abstain. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:27, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demagnetization[edit]

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

Appears to be an attempt to WP:SPINOUT from Magnetization#Demagnetization, but ended up abandoned without any significant addition. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magnetization#Demagnetization, of course. (You could have done so yourself without any need for a deletion nomination.) The article is a duplicate of text which already exists at Magnetization. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Degaussing, for which it is a synonym. Degaussing has a more in depth discussion of the practice, including some history and significance. --Mark viking (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magnetization#Demagnetization per Mike Rosoft, text here is complete copy-paste. SD0001 (talk) 10:10, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to learn a foreign language[edit]

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

Simply WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTESSAY. Maybe also somewhere duplicative of Language learning strategies or more broadly Language education. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO is not applicable. The article is not giving detailed instructions. It is not an instruction manual or a textbook.

WP:NOTESSAY is not applicable either. It does not contain original research or personal opinions (though the final sentence is arguably a personal opinion). It contains many references to research from reputable sources (with one to a blog, but I think an exception should be made for this blog).

Finally, nowhere in all the articles on language in Wikipedia -- including those cited above -- does it tell anyone how to proceed, where to start, if one wants to learn another language. In my opinion, this is a piece of information that is appropriate for Wikipedia to provide. deisenbe (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (I'm the author, with a Ph.D. in language, if that's relevant.)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTHOWTO. We already have an article on Second-language acquisition. If the creator wants to they can move relevant parts of this "how to" to Wikiversity. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons above, particularly WP:NOTHOWTO, which is kindof a slam-dunk considering that "How to..." is the article title. Despite the "sky isn't blue" arguments of the creator above, this article is indeed all of those things. This is a personl, self-help/how-to guide that duplicates, the info found at Second-language acquisition. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wasn't there a CSD criteria for these? ― Padenton |☎ 21:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, this is not Wikipedia content; however it would be perfectly acceptable at Wikibooks or Wikiversity (although we've got a lot of language learning guides at Wikibooks already). Liam987 (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Previously deleted as A10 as a duplicate of Language education. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found the article to be without pith. Seligne (talk) 04:28, 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 redirect to Tube Bar prank calls. Davewild (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis "Red" Deutsch[edit]

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

Not notable. This article is a coatrack to talk about Tube Bar prank calls which have their own page. Red lacks any notability independent of these prank calls. Whilst also a boxer the article itself says "Not particularly noted as a boxer". duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, why would you delete an obvious redirect? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable as a boxer but the case for Redirecting to Tube Bar prank calls makes sense.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Non notable boxer so a redirect is fine.Mdtemp (talk) 19:10, 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) 20:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hups[edit]

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

This article seems to be a joke. It was already proposed for deletion by WikiDan61 in 2009, but Bfhupperts, the creator of this article removed the tag one day later without explanation in the edit summary. Bfhupperts has only those two contributions to Wikipedia. I cite WikiDan61 for the reason which I agree: 'No verification found that "Hups" is a common abbreviation of "Hupperts". No sources provided for any other information in the article. "Huppert" already exists, and a redirect from this page to that would seem improper.' Cyfal (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was likely a hoax at the time of its creation. No indications that this abbreviation is used for the name Hupperts. No indications that a village named Hups-Jolie exists in France. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Appears to be a joke. Luckily the interlanguage links are manual links in the article, so nothing will need to be fixed if this is deleted. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a copy of a 2009 version of Hubert with the names changed. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would make it an A10 speedy delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 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 - withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) --ElHef (Meep?) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Apple[edit]

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apple began emerging as a major star at cornerback for Ohio State's national championship team in 2014. He has received significant coverage (i.e., not passing references in game coverage) in multiple mainstream media sources, some of which have now been added to the article, such that the subject passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn my error. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 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. Nomination withdrawn Missvain (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gjika[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, but perhaps someone who reads Albanian can prove me wrong? Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I found several sources indicating her importance to her peers and Albanian literature. Hopefully someone who speaks Albanian can flesh out the article more. SusunW (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Big_iron (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great work, SusunW. The Albanian language article has no sources, but hopefully this can be addd to to show it meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to me to now meet WP:GNG so I've removed the stub tag and the notability tag. Big thank you to Big iron and SusunW for creating and improving the article. I'll be noming it tonight at DYK unless someone else beats me to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn' Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 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) 20:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Raio[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - single Top Tier fight awhile ago and that was a loss. Does not meet WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG since the only source is a link to his unimpressive fight record (2 wins, 6 losses) at sherdog. Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight (a TKO loss over 2 years ago).Mdtemp (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 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) 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EastGate Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Weakly sourced (press releases only) article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator Not only press release, so your reason to deletion is wrong. [10]. Karlhard (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent notability and close to no content. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A newbie editor lists that there is no independent notability, without an easy explanation to delete? Please check the references, and expand your reason for deletion. Karlhard (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, Lem has been editing since 2010. That comment was extremely misleading. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not aware of any precedent about whether NASDAQ listing confers automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, however I may cite a contributor:

"*Comment: I would have to look into this but prima facie I would say if the stock of a company is traded on NASDAQ it has some notability however, if the share price drops below $.10 we would be looking at an historical company. As far as the new editor someone can explain that the many failures of Thomas Edison didn't stop success. Otr500 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)" --- Karlhard (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I add WP:LISTED. Karlhard (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same reason as first AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty amazed it was kept at the first AfD-- the reason referred to was that it was a new ed. who had written a great many unrelated articles and was clearly uninvolved, but that is not a reason for keeping, far from it, considering there is not one bit of evidence for notability. LISTED refers to the main board of the NYSE and the London SE and similar in other countries. It does not refer to NASDAQ. Multiple AfDs have accepted that tho some companies on NASDAQ are notable--even famous--, most of them are not. As for the references, ref 1 is a directory listing; ref.2 is straight PR from PR newswire; ref. 3 is a straight PR copied from PR newswire as it says right at the top, ref. 4 is a listing ; ref 5 is the directory entry in Bloomberg, including a listing of the firm's press releases. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG and general lack of reliable sources. Nik thestunned 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also can't find any sources about the company besides listings, PR and basic information. Optimale ^Gu 11:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom that it fails wp:corpdepth. There isn't even a single clear secondary reference, let alone the more-than-one needed to satisfy corpdepth. BakerStMD T|C 19:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although there's many stock markets, NASDAQ is a major one so the argument has merit, and an article would be useful for readers. Saying that, ultimately there's no automatic notability and NASDAQ is not NYSE so we must rely on sourcing which falls short here. (Little weight should be given to dismissing new editors or the promo editing by User:Karlhard.) Widefox; talk 18:39, 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 redirect to 7 Horns 7 Eyes. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convalescence EP[edit]

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

Delete. Do not satisfy WP:MUSIC guidelines. The article admits this was just a sampler for an album, Throes of Absolution, which I am also nominating for deletion. Another release by this band (7 Horns 7 Eyes (Self-titled EP)) has already been deleted as non-notable, but mysteriously recreated. Emeraude (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect All to 7 Horns 7 Eyes. I couldn't find sources other than fan-made metal blogs. ~EdGl! 15:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete 7 Horns 7 Eyes (Self-titled EP) as G4 recreation. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I found all references to all three articles, and i could find more, therefore i think that they should stay

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]

Keep All the references i found were from Allmusic.com They are all reliable sources. And This band is going to have 3 possible releases and will need pages for them. So They should probably stay. Metalworker14 (Yo) 9:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that the 2 "keep" !votes above were made by the same user. A listing on AllMusic doesn't make an album automatically notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that the Allmusic pages do is confirm the existence of the albums. That is of no use to us whatsoever - the question is not do the albums exist but whether or not they are notable. It is worth observing though, that the amount of use these Allmusic pages have had is minimal, which in itself suggests they are not notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No coverage in reliable sources. About.com and sputnik reviews are not by professional reviewers per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the band. The band's notability looks a little shaky judging from the article we have, but while it's there redirecting these is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 09:14, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that most delete accusations were all put on by the same user. I will look for more references anyway. Metalworker14 (Yo) 12:52, 25 March, 2015 (UTC)

The above is so untrue as to amount to a deliberate lie! No one has made more than a single delete !vote; ALL keep votes have been by one person. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 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 delete. As no sources have been provided, during this discussion, to meet the requirements of either WP:BLP or WP:GNG, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Phillips (journalist)[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E type of situation. Being a working journo is not in itself notable. There seems to be a lack of coverage outside of that short time in Ukraine. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: On a short list of western journalists who have covered Ukraine since Euro Maidan with a view to avoiding the mainstream rhetoric, you would have to include Graham Phillips whose extensive photography has recorded most of the major moments of upheaval. There are numerous censorship campaigns going on in Ukraine right now and several journalists have been detained or disappeared, and there is de-facto state law against journalists who don't peddle Kiev's propaganda for them. It's also no secret that Banderist and other pro-EuroMaidan elements have been laboriously editing, censoring, and making a pool of lies out of any Ukraine-related articles. This proposed deletion is just one more of those attempts. Graham Phillips is "notable" enough judging by the number of followers on his twitter feed (over 34,000), and his portfolio on Ukraine is extensive enough, to merit having a Wikipedia entry. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are many entries of ppl in similar WP:BLP1E type of situations... Grahams activities are not over in the Ukraine and there are many journalists and other "professionals" whose inclusion in Wikipedia are just as questionable, if not more so, as the inclusion of this entry. len (talk) 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OSE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: "Appearing" to be a WP:BLP1E type of situation is not not sufficient reason to delete any entry as what "appears" to be a situation to 1 person is not sufficent to delete an article. If you believe it should be deleted then that should also be supported by a majority of the ppl voting. len (talk) 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Struck duplicate !vote above; only one is allowed. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Notable journalist covered in numerous articles, and writing for reliable major news media. Especially notable for objective coverage in English language from ranks of resistance groups in Donbass.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Using the words "reliable major news media", "objective", and "resistance groups" to describe Graham Phillips' work doesn't really square with the same Graham Phillips of whom I'm aware (and "journalist" is a pretty big stretch as well...), but regardless, I do agree that he is a notable person. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia notability standards. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Le petit fromage, Duffbeerforme &c. I'd also like to highlight that it's impossible to maintain a neutral article when the subject is controversial and has little or no coverage in independent sources. I've seen some very problematic edits here, mostly from Len, who seems to own the article and keeps it scrupulously clean with the help of deeply misleading summaries. User:GrahamWPhillips had a serious sock problem; now similar socks with a similar editing style run an article about Graham Phillips. The whole mess stinks; flush it away. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he is more notable than many other bloggers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent organized resume-fluffing (?) of a non-notable. As noted above, an SPI is in order. Pax 19:12, 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) 08:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Freedom Foundation[edit]

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

wp:promotion ap:aboutself Darkstar1st (talk) 08:45, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot see any notability for organisation itself: people who work for it maybe, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Its essentially a puff piece.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probable keep~~ I'm going to take a swing at sourcing this. Before I do, I want to make it clear that this foundation appears to represent a radical ideology, one in which inhaling extreme ideological purity appears to make participants lose touch with reality. Distasteful as some of the ideas espoused by this Foundation may be, if the organization exists and has a budget, a paid staff, it probably passes notability as an organization. And if it can be sourced, then it passes WP:GNG. No matter how distasteful or "fringe" some editors find it. Plus, frankly, I like to have 'em listed right here were folks can look 'em up and see what they stand for and who they stand with.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentThe 2nd paragraph of the lede states "The foundation communicates its message to the public by means of.... Op-Ed pieces published in more than 800 newspapers in the United States and Latin America." While I can't vouch for the #800, but a quick search turned up a very long list of newspapers - some major - that publish Hornberger's op-eds with FFF as his credential.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little sourcing. This outfit holds conferences, appears to have a budget, ~~I think it's a keeper.~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete reflecting on how little independent coverage I found, and the fact that overwhelmingly what comes up is the name as the organization in Hornberger's byline, the more inclined I am to think that it fails WP:ORGSIG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG.--JayJasper (talk) 03:30, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarGeek[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Mostly sourced to press releases and the like. Claims that Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses ScholarGeek, but only links to a "Search for an academic program in Israel" page which doesn't mention ScholarGeek. Also claims that the company was a finalist at Vator start-up competition, but Vator itself appears to barely meet the notability guidelines; its awards do not appear to and deserve a brief mention at the main article at best (I don't think they can be used as an evidence of notability). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy. Written by paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and Fails WP:ORG and is clearly promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Doc James, paid editing is allowed in Wikipedia if the employer is disclosed and if it is not promotional. It is not meant to promote that website. Every student will check for complete details of scholarship provider, so I created it.Balaji E.M (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You described yourself as an experienced Wikipedian before you wrote these two articles. What other accounts have you edited with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ORG and is promotional. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:57, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sohini Sengupta[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:RS Shrikanthv (talk) 06:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She won a national award for her performance in Paromitar Ek Din. I believe it meets WP:GNG. — Yash ^[talk] 06:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs clean-up, minor copyediting, more and better sources etc, but the notability of the subject is not in doubt. Two national level awards, Sangeet Natak Akademi's Ustad Bismillah Khan Yuva Puraskar (verification) and the 2011 National Film Award for Best Supporting Actress (verification; p. 30 as Sohini Haldar), themselves attest to notable contribution to theater and film respectively, and thus suffice to establish notability under WP:NACTOR standard. Abecedare (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 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) 08:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aronsky[edit]

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

Aronsky is an opthamalogist who does lasik surgery. Nothing about him makes him niotable. He does not pass the general notability guidelines or notability guidelines for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of American Academy of Ophthalmology meets WP:ACADEMIC #4.--Mishae (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely being a member of an academic organization with thousands of members does not automatically make you notable. Pax 07:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a fellow of the AAO would perhaps meet ACADEMIC#4, but being a member just means that he's paying his dues. GScholar lists some articles with a smattering of citations, but not coming close to what is needed for ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Randykitty: What is a difference between being a member and being a fellow? By being a fellow he also paying his dues. Am I wrong?--Mishae (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fellow is a member who has met some additional criteria related to his/her knowledge or experience. In some fields/organizations, being a fellow is an indication of distinction and we presume notability (ex: fellows of the IEEE). In medical specialties, even being a fellow is often not an indicator of distinction (ex: fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics are simply board-certified pediatricians). For this organization, the difference does not seem to matter, because he is not a fellow. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about text book chapters? By that HE MEETS WP:ACADEMIC #1 since not everyone writes chapter books, at least not an ophthalmologist. I might be wrong though, but I never saw a book on optometry as much as on psychiatry.--Mishae (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me, writing book chapters is a much less significant contribution than authoring "several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education" as criterion 4 specifies. Can we even track down how many/which books we're talking about? EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something that you and Randykitty should talk about.--Mishae (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with DGG below. Writing book chapters in this field is much important than writing an article. What usually happens if a high-profile researcher accepts to contribute a book chapter is that they hand it over to a (grad) student, who does most of the writing with guidance from the researcher, who also normally vets the final version before submissions. Also, book chapters are often (but not always) only reviewed by the editors (i.e., not really peer-reviewed, like journal articles are). Book editors in STM sometimes have a hard time finding chapter authors, exactly because chapters don't count for much on your CV or when you're up for tenure or promotion, so many people see it as a waste of their time. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think Randy has it exactly right. In science, the writing of book chapters is not normally regarded as being anywhere near as important a writing peer reviewed articles. There are some fields of the humanities where it is otherwise--in early medieval history and some related esoteric fields it's the main mechanism of publication. But not in medicine. More generally, "not everybody does whatever" does not necessarily prove the ones who do are notable. The author of a major book even in science or the editor in chief of a major medical textbook is notable. I note, additionally, that a canned bio using terms of praise that does not even list the specific publications is not really good evidence of anything. The authors of even chapters in recent major medical textbooks are generally listed in worldcat. He is not listed there. But I tracked them down in Google Scholar: he has a total of 4 publications-- Three journal articles, cited by only 10, 1, and 0 other papers respectively, and a chapter in a minor review series, cited by 5, which must be the "book" that was intended. And EricEnfermero is of course also right about the significance of Fellow. The firm of physicians needs a better PR agency to write its web pages. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Prof and the extension we use for academic physicians as leaders in their field. user:DGG is right about peer-reivew articles >> textbook chapters/"authoring textbooks" which can mean lots of things. BakerStMD T|C 19:01, 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 redirect to No. 2 (band). I very very rarely close on one !vote but it's an easy redirect so speeding it up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allistair Chestnut[edit]

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

Does not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Redirect to No. 2 (band). For articles with so little content it would be worth trying a redirect before bringing them to AfD. --Michig (talk) 09:37, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Street parking types Australia[edit]

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

There are already pages concerning parking with a world wide view which could be expanded upon; Parking space, parking, and Disabled parking permit. I think this page would be a WP:CFORK Rent A Troop (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I previously proposed a deletion(not a speedy deletion) of this page. However the author insisted not to delete it and responded with the following quote in the edit summary following removal of the proposed deletion tag "Rules are pretty different for Australia. I have saved whatever completed. Planning to improve further. Please do not delete". I followed up with the author on his talk page. No response as of yet. I think from his message in the edit summary he appears focused on Australia, but there is a worldwide view in this Wikipedia. Maybe in the future the page would come into use, but for now there is plenty of space to add its viable material(if any) onto related parking pages--Rent A Troop (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This content is valuable for new migrants. Can you please complete the article with more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.14.109.158 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not offer any new or concise information that is available to foreigners travelling to Australia any where.110.149.155.214 (talk) 00:56, 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabeena Karki[edit]

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

Contested prod (from a IP-also user keeps on removing the orphan tag) anyway-unotable radio person with unreliable refs. Wgolf (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In oppose to the deletion; The article is a stub, therefore, we should allow other contributors to build on it. It has introduced reference to the third party sources, therefore, we should consider keeping the article active. Salman 06:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I did not find anything notable here. Educationtemple (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stub-status aside, I'm finding little or no reliable coverage independent of the subject (sorry, but a Facebook user profile ranking from an apparently anonymous blog hardly qualifies). Levdr1lp / talk 11:34, 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. There's a rough but sufficient consensus here that the the league does not meet our notability requirements. The suggestion that this might find a home as part of a larger-scope article seems like a reasonable idea, but it needs to be said that simply aggregating a bunch of non-notable topics doesn't guarantee the result will be judged notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Central Senior Hockey League[edit]

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

Article about a subject which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Only references in article are primary. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Second tier senior hockey league, seems plenty notable to me. DMighton (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be some degree of regular media coverage of the league: [11]. DMighton (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't like doing it, but I also can't find third-party references that give the league significant coverage. Perhaps someone can provide those, but without them, an article can't be sustained. Ravenswing 05:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm not in favour of doing this since I follow the Lloydminster Border Kings that have also dropped to AA Senior. But I've never heard of this league until now and I would say if it is notable, the Battle River Hockey League should be also. But I don't believe the BRHL to be notable and the Border Kings notability is only due to their Allan Cup wins. I say a weak delete because this league may have inherent local notability, though I don't remember ever seeing it mentioned in the Edmonton papers. If third party sources can be found for it, like from Hockey Alberta or another site, I'd be inclined to change my vote.Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems if you search each of the teams individually, you will find local newspaper coverage of the games. I am not sure whether this gives it enough notability or whether this falls into WP:Routine. Here is the Morinville coverage from their local paper to give you an idea. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Match reports is explicitly the sort of coverage WP:ROUTINE rejects as being indicative of notability. Ravenswing 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing, sources are few and far between. Tavix | Talk 05:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources :@Ravenswing: @Shootmaster 44: @Tavix: Here is reference to Hockey Alberta links showing standings of the league and tournaments sanctioned by Hockey Alberta. | Hockey Alberta Provincials and | Leagues in Alberta Rabbit Hill Beer (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These verify that the league exists. Existence is different from notability though. See WP:EXISTENCE. Tavix | Talk 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one was challenging that the league existed. If you need a refresher on the pertinent parts of the GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition ..." Ravenswing 05:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand what you both are getting at, let me see if I can find anything else to substantiate the league further. I was planning on doing an article for each of the AA leagues in Alberta, which covers the full province. Is this something that may bring more notability to it as a whole, if it were part of a larger "umbrella" "Senior AA" as opposed to just a stand alone? :@Ravenswing: @Shootmaster 44: @Tavix: Rabbit Hill Beer (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if that is what you are thinking of doing, maybe this content would be better served as a section in Hockey Alberta with other Alta Sr Leagues... minus the Chinook which is notable on its own... maybe we should consider a merge option? Thoughts? DMighton (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you want me to do, and I'll begin working on the other leagues, I just don't want to begin and then have it deleted, so once you give me the go ahead, I'll begin putting it all together. :@Ravenswing: @Shootmaster 44: @Tavix: @DMighton: Rabbit Hill Beer (talk) 20:59, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make reference that one of the leagues already is covered with an article here, the North Peace Hockey League, which is also a Senior AA league. They send teams to Hockey Alberta's Senior AA Provincals, as do the other 4 leagues within Alberta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbit Hill Beer (talk • contribs) 15:35, 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. While the keeps are weak, there isn't really an argument for deletion here. Michig (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Hamilton[edit]

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

Not sure about notability, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Bloomfield Wgolf (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 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, czar ⨹ 22:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - looking online, I saw some possible sources: e.g., [12], but not a lot. She has gained at least local notability for her work in theater. Bearian (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Local sources cover her leadership in managing, directing productions in local theatre.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:08, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Without Borders organizations[edit]

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

Can't really see how this list is suitable for Wikipedia's article space, it seems to simply be a directory/linkfarm of largely non-notable organisations that have the words "...Without Borders" or "...Sans Frontieres" in their name. They could all in theory have some inspiration from the name of Médecins Sans Frontières, but this is hardly a defining characteristic that warrants a list article (or category). The redlinks are, without exception, cited only to their own homepages. Time for it to go, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Sionk (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've cleaned up the list by removing non-notable entries, so at least the article has has a proper list-based article format. I'm still undecided as to whether this is a compelling organizational concept. There are sources out there that treat without borders organizations as a conceptual whole, but I haven't found much in depth discussion of the concept or defining attributes, other than being international in flavor. --Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. I'm a WP:Deletionist, but this list provides a good encyclopedic reference point to all the organizations. The links to the organizations' websites, however, should be on the target pages. I support listing the orgs here and placing the sources or citations on the target pages. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. A lot of people have contributed to this list, presumably thinking that it is worth that effort. Tabletop (talk) 11:06, 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, Nakon 01:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trivial grouping by shared name. The things on the list may all be similar, but it will exclude many other similar organizations that have a different name form. This is not a grouping by any common characteristic of the organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this grouping isn't compelling and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:18, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noize Generation[edit]

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

Prodded by User:WikiDan61 under: "= Insufficient evidence of notability. No major chart positions, no national airplay, etc." Deprodded by User:Staszek Lem "Poor article, but there is independent coverage in news IMO enough for WP:MUSIC". I agree with WikiDan that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) I see does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Please present better sources here and add them to the article if anyone can find some. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - My German is not good, but seems that NoGen gained media coverage related to Austria selection of Eurovision [13]. If someone who can read Deutsch verifies this, then the notability is sufficient.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found quite a bit of German-language coverage but most related to his part in the contest to find Germany's Eurovision entry. Appears to have done quite a bit outside the competition though. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 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, Nakon 01:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia Creek[edit]

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

After looking at WP:COMMONOUTCOMES#Hospitals, WP:ORG and WP:GNG, I can't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY in any form, nor could I find a good redirect target for this orphaned page. It has been tagged for notability for 7 years without resolution. Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 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, Nakon 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom that it fails wp:GNG. Minimally developed page with no notability. BakerStMD T|C 19:06, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (dialogue) @ 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follett Ice[edit]

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

I don't think this quite meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Long-running company with offices in 2 countries. Tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 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, Nakon 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am seeing some sources and has some notability, QSR Magazine, Food Management (I can't see the contents for this one), and [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valoem (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:00, 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, Aerospeed (Talk) 01:44, 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. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Forsman[edit]

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

~~Longtime unsourced BLP Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)~~ WithdrawWgolf (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it needs to be dealt with, but I believe that it should be kept if it is properly referenced. I noticed that iw-link to svwiki was lacking, which could provide a starting point. Tomas e (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in some references. Smartskaft (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a few refs now. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - J 1982 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC) As above.[reply]
Withdrawn-Thanks everyone. Wgolf (talk) 14:54, 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. Michig (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cubika[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability for 7 years; hopefully we can now get resolution. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 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, Nakon 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about them that I can find. Cinteotl (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple RS sources. Only ref is a deadlink, but even if it were good, would not on its own be sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 03:06, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of the Irish[edit]

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

Sourced mainly to the network. Shown only once, with no long-term significance indicated. Of the sources which might be independent, one doesn't work and one is not even about the show but about a "previously claimed notion" that was mentioned in it. Greykit (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:27, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cato Hoeben[edit]

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

I couldn't estblish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total Environmental Restoration Solutions, Inc.[edit]

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

Not a notable company; everything in the article is either primary, non-reliable or self-generated. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 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, Nakon 01:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 01:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrom Abubakr[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (well the only ref was to youtube which I got rid of) with no sign of notability. Wgolf (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 03:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Absolutely. No references at all, basically a stub that somehow wasn't caught.--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unquestionably non-notable. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AbigailAbernathy-yeah I know its amazing how every so often we find some article that is really old that was never caught till now! Wgolf (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, first world 4 million article encyclopedia problems lmao. Some always slip through the cracks, luckily it's editors like us who find them :)---A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me.} _Moves. 18:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google search using the Cyrillic/Tajik version of the subject's name makes me think that the subject may well be notable - but if so, the reliable sources all seem to be in Tajik. If, sometime during this AfD, a Tajik-speaker can check for sources and add any good ones to the article, then we may be able to keep it - but otherwise, we unfortunately have no basis on which to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Eye[edit]

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

No significance asserted. Sourced only to the network's website and Facebook. Greykit (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the article doesn't assert itself or cite significant resources, there is some amount of coverage out there, but is it significant enough? Also, it's beaten out by another "Eco-eye" when you search 'eco eye' without quotations, and "eye eco" comes up before it as well. 1 2 3 4 5 Upjav (talk) 21:15, 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, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, of the five sources above, the first two have the same publisher (Independent News & Media). The fourth one mentions Eco Eye along with another show, which takes up half of it. The third and fifth one are about the same incident - perhaps that could be covered in the presenter's article if nothing further turns up? --Greykit (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, much more importantly, the first source is actually written by the show's presenter and reads like that ("In our current Eco Eye TV series", "We so far have featured three episodes", "Our next 'Eco Eye' is Tuesday, January 27", "you can access our previous Eco Eye episodes"). --Greykit (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:15, 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 no consensus. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Gough[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to meet WP:NACTOR by having had significant roles in multiple notable television shows -- Titanic: Blood and Steel, What Remains, and Stella. Her stage work has also received some coverage [15][16]. Gongshow talk 07:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Malleson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF. No independent sources to determine notability. Liam987 (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SPA-created article on an asst professor having 1 book with intermediate holdings, a handful of GS cites, and no WoS cites. Classic WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep – Although I don't particularly care who created the article, normally I would agree that the number of GS cites is not enough to indicate that Malleson has been influential in his field. Too soon. But there were two cites to the book: (this) in Business Ethics Quarterly, which was a brief mention ("Should the state do more to facilitate or subsidize the ownership of firms by groups other than investors (Gould 2004; Malleson 2014)...") and (Ethical Perspectives), which was an in-depth review. Weak keep mainly because the Oxford University Press is a very selective publisher and because the Ethical Perspectives review makes it possible to write a detailed description of the book. Question for Agricola44: It seems that both of these journals are indexed in the social sciences edition of the Journal Citation Reports. Is that the same as Web of Science? I am wondering why they don't show up as cites. Is there an URL I can enter to check WoS cites? What buttons do I need to click? – Margin1522 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon to have accumulated the academic impact to pass WP:PROF#C1 (only single-digit citation counts in Google scholar, not enough to show notability that way) and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 New York City house fire[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news site, and this event, while tragic, does not warrant an article. Step hen 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this incident creates something like the Amber Alert system (in this case, a regulation or the like about fire codes), this has no long-lasting impact. This is exactly against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NEVENT, and should be the type of thing Wikinews could be used for. Just because it got a brief spat of international coverage does not mean it is notable for a WP article. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another WP:1E fatality fire. A politician milks minor face-time because kids died. Pax 07:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The background of an ongoing issue involving Shabbat fires, covered by reliable sources, moves this beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Moving it to another name like Shabbat and fire safety where more context could be added might not be a bad idea, though. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. It seems like, as we are dealing with a home-based religious ceremony that involves the use of open flames or heated surfaces that accidents happen all the time; [17] in the US there's 230-odd fires associated with Christmas trees in homes each year, and the only place this is mentioned is inserted among details of Christmas tree. This was a routine home accident, doesn't need an article at all on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AP reports the bodies are heading to Israel. Google News shows the article picked up in 1,900 outlets. This has interest outside just New York. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't looking for a burst of coverage, but enduring coverage, and that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not news. The article can always be recreated if there is persistent coverage over a long period of time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply not news.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it wasn't a partial coatrack for any Shabbat (or Passover) fire one can find. Like Masem says, where there's open flame, there's often fire. New York is the mainstream media centre of the world, so it's not surprising that this is recycled in many outlets. In the bigger picture, just another sad fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This bit about it being the deadliest New York fire in seven years, while verifiable, seems all wrong. That article might have a new See Also soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad event but doesn't deserve an article. And if this does deserve an article, what about this? —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 11:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on the sources. Come on, people. Everyking (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires enduring coverage, not a burst of coverage. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage has been enduring right up to today. How much longer does it have to endure? Everyking (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - A drive to have people get smoke detectors does not seem like significant enduring coverage. It's also a routine thing that after major fires, fire safety groups push for people to better protect their homes. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - So even though it continues to get press coverage, you think it's insignificant and routine because it involves discussion of fire safety? What kind of source do you want to demonstrate "enduring coverage", then? Everyking (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        In terms of the long-term POV, yes. It has had zero impact on the world at large. There is very little that this story affects. A year from now, there is only an exceptional chance this story will be considered important. This is a story that belongs at Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me you've moved the goalposts. First, you wanted "enduring coverage". When I observed that coverage is ongoing, you said it was insignificant. When I asked what kind of source I needed to provide, you failed to answer and just said it "has had zero impact on the world at large". So the standard morphed, in that brief exchange, from "enduring coverage" to "impact on the world at large". Everyking (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're calling the news that local officials have distributed fire safety information because of the fire "enduring", that's not working. We are looking for enduring coverage in the larger world, not just local effects. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so you will change your vote if I provide a source discussing more than just fire safety, right? Everyking (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this gets deleted I'll merge contents to Sabbath food preparation and Blech -- Aronzak (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Blech#Fire Safety. If this gets nuked, do a redirect -- Aronzak (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I myself have barely heard of this in major news outlets I follow. I didn't even know what the event was until I recognized the victims' religion from a minor news report online. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:18, 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. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prema (singer/songwriter)[edit]

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

Singer who has been long marked for notability Wgolf (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom. Liam987 (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found by User:Duffbeerforme establishes article's notability per WP:GNG. Liam987 (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Lots of coverage in The New Straits Times such as:

Yassin, Khairyl (26 August 1996), "Primarily Prema Lucas", The New Straits Times

Al-Attas, Suraya (14 December 1996), "Just Prema Lucas and her guitar", The New Straits Times

Taib, Shuib (14 December 1996), "On location with Prema Lucas", The New Straits Times

Al-Attas, Suraya (20 February 1998), "Prema takes her music Down Under", The New Straits Times

Outside of that is a good section in Nuvich, Alexandra (24 May 1997), "Asian breakthroughs", Billboard. Coverage from multiple publications in multiple countries. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found links for two of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ~~Appears to~~ Meets WP:BASIC as per sources provided by Duffbeerforme. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well one word named people are the hardest to find sources for. Wgolf (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf: Do you still advocate for the article to be deleted at this time? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage found by duffbeerforme are sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism[edit]

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

Modern/recently founded (2006) organization that claims a basis in teachings of the 4th century "Arian Heresy". No secondary sources attesting to notability could be found. Delete per WP:ORG. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the church website, I see no indication that this "church" even has congregations that actually meet. I strongly susect that a handful of people have set this up and appointed three of themslves as its bishops. WE regularly delete articles on local churches that have buildings where they worship together. The whole thing looks like a NN contrivance. If someone can provide evidence that there is at least one congregation of at least 50 people that regularly worships together, I might reconsider my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no sources for proof of notability. ~EdGl! 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Catholic and Arian are mutually exclusive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above: Trinitarian heresy-hunters trying to call the tune again. History repeats itself. Where did this figure of 50 congregants come from? What exactly defines "notability"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip De Vere (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by significant third party coverage by reliable sources. All I could find regarding this group were first party sources, hence by our General Notability Guidelines, the subject is non-notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 19:01, 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.