Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 March	25 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 Speedy Keep (nominator withdrew, non-admin closure). Andyjsmith (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google and censorship[edit]

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

Currently we have 3 articles:

Googly and Censorship is only 50 words and just links to those 2 pages, however, Censorship of Google is only a redirect to Censorship by google. so it presents the illusion of a choice, when really boath links lead to the same article. This is an example on why I typically discourage putting prepositions in article titles. had we gone with Google Censorship. it would have avoided this. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a dab page. We don't normally delete these. It's not a great dab page but it does the job - it's the sort of thing you might come across in an online search and is of some value. All dab pages are short and consist of links elsewhere so I fail to see why this is a valid criticism. There are probably quite a few related articles that could be linked here. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, Two links diverged in a wiki but not really since one was just a redirect to the other link so it didn't really matter at all. I deleted the pointless article And that has made all the difference. This is no Frostian deliemma , this lie about a choice that isn't there doesn't serve the end user. if you can argue that a user will get to this page and be glad for the bait and switch I'd be interested to hear that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that this article "has search engine value" has no base at all. I Googled "Censorship and Google Wikipedia" on Google, Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo and all 4 search engines brought up Censorship by Google not a single one had Censorship and Google in the first page of results. this is a poor Dab and we can do better, our users deserve better. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - AfD isn't even close to being properly formed. Nominator has a well-documented axe that they keep grinding. Nomination statement is bogus as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke offt here) 23:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So well documented you can't even identify the axe or provide a single shred of evidence? I know your unsupported accusation that I have "an axe to grind" is made in good faith. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - ~~we're talking to ourselves here. This AfD isn't properly formed and can't reach a valid conclusion. Nominator should fix it or withdraw. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)~~I see that it's now listed. Still badly formatted but it will do. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bryce Carmony, as nominator, you shouldn't comment with the word 'delete' at the beginning later in the discussion, your belief that it should be deleted is already noted, and added another delete in bold gives the impression of someone else agreeing with you. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Censorship by Google, if people are specifically interested in China, then there is a clear heading at the top they can click on. At the moment, a dab with two entries going to the same page, one to the page itself and one to a subsection. Not convinced it's useful, a direct link is more useful to a reader. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree that a redirect is a good idea as well, I believe in approval voting, everyone can vote only once, but you can vote for more than one thing. a redirect or a deletion would improve the end user experience with this content while staying true to wikipedia standards. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot !vote in your own AfD, especially not twice and for two different outcomes. Either explicitly change the nomination or withdraw it entirely. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I can vote in my own AFD because Wikipedia is better off from it, secondly I have not voted twice I've only voted once for 2 different outcomes. Let me introduce you to approval voting andy, let's imagine for a moment that we're driving and I ask . where would you like to eat. and you say "I'm down for either restaurant A or restaurant B ( I don't know the names of any English restaurants)" I would say " alright I vote for place A or Place C" and we would go to place A since we have both voted once and place A has the most votes. Voting once for 2 things is not the same as Voting twice for 2 things. There's a great article on it Approval voting, you should check it out before you lie about someone voting twice. Bryce Carmony (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What on Earth is the nominator talking about? He says that this article links to Censorship of Google which "is only a redirect to Censorship by google". Well, firstly it doesn't link to Censorship of Google, and secondly that article doesn't even exist let alone redirect to Censorship by Google. In fact the article links to Censorship by Google and Internet censorship in China, two completely distinct articles. Lukeno94 called the nomination "bogus" and I agree - at best the nomination is completely misleading and is based on a huge error. The nominator should withdraw and, if he wishes, submit a new AfD that accurately represents the article in question. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not Censorship of google, it's Censorship of Google Search, I forgot to add the word "search" on it by mistake. Censorship of Google Search = redirect. at BEST Censorship and Google could also be a redirect. but I don't really see the need it for that. how many people possible type into Wikipedia search Censorship of Google Search I doubt hardly any. they all Google their news about google and end up there. The differences between us andy is that I care about the user, and you care about the editor. None of your posts talk about "this is what's best for the user" your posts talk about "the editor forgot to add a word so lets count that against him, user be dammed" So I'm going to ask you directly. on a scale of 1 to 10 how high of an experience do you think users who get here have. and how high do you think they deserve? you'll want to make this about me I'm sure, but try for once to edit for the users not for yourself. I have good faith in you, you're just misguided and have had a lot of tantrums since your 3rd time failing to get me banned. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dab article that is the subject of this AfD did not link to Censorship of Google Search either, until you edited it just now. That's a deliberate attempt to mislead this debate. Andyjsmith (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called "Censorship of Google Search" and you tell me that that article doesn't belong in the article "Google and Censorship". if those 2 articles can't link to each other I don't know any two articles that possibly can. If putting "Censorship of Google Search" into "Censorship and Google" makes no sense. provide me 3 articles you think "Censorship of Google Search" belongs in. Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is from Wikipedia naming manual of style "Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. For example, use Islamic terrorism, not "Islam and terrorism"; however, "Media's coupling of Islam and terrorism" may be acceptable. Avoid the use of "and" to combine concepts that are not commonly combined in reliable sources." here we are saying Google and Censorship, When a better name would be Google Censorship so that the contents of all 3 articles could easily fit there. instead of having 3 articles titled with problematic prepositions and conjunctions. this article is a redirect to a page that is essentially a redirect, since China censorship is not ambiguous with Censorship BY GOOGLE, If you want to claim this is a disambiguous article what is the ambiguity you're clearing up? Censorship By and of Google COULD be disambiguous but you are saying that Chineese censorship and Google censorship are ambiguous which they aren't they are clearly different topics and not ambiguous at all. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question what ambiguity does this article address? the ambiguity between censorship by Google and censorship by the Chinese government? I don't think that's very ambiguous at all. Someone who wants to keep this article please clarify the ambiguity that is seen here. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Censorship by Google. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've created the previously non-existent article Censorship of Google and put proper content into it - only a stub at this stage. I've changed the redirection of Censorship of Google Search to point there rather than to Censorship by Google, which is a completely different thing. I've fixed the Google and censorship article that's at AfD so the second point, censorship of Google, now actually provides a link to somewhere meaningful (the new stub), in order to provide a clear disambiguation of the different meanings of "Google and censorship". You should also note that Google censorship, which is undoubtedly a realistic search term, redirects to Google and censorship. So that's pretty much a full house for anyone who is interested in subjects that contain the keywords "Google" and "censorship": a dab page, a full article on the "by" meaning and a stub for the "of" meaning. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redact proposal based on the work by user andy, the article is inline with a good dab article. I don't know how to withdraw the proposal but I do let it be known. Thanks andy for the good work new feel makes a lot more sense Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:13, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Faridi[edit]

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

Non notable musician. The references are both regurgitated press release material. Fiddle Faddle 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOTYET. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are insufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note The references, such as they were, have now been removed. It is an unreferenced BLP right now. Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Timtrent, If there is no references, than it qualifies for speedy deletion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps so, but it would then be likely to be recreated immediately. There is a Draft: article just waiting to take its place, and of the same quality Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment -- Timtrent -- The user who created the page has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talentandbeyond. Maybe that also qualifies for article deletion? If the draft is of the same quality, the draft should not be moved into the mainspace. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talentandbeyond has only been blocked for 24 hours, the sock puppet has been indeffed. You can move faster if you wish. My view is that there is no need to rush. Having something as a draft is not a block to a unilateral move to main namespace by any editor, by the way. Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Timtrent, you are probably right. I am just going to let the deletion nomination take its own course. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deleteunotable singer. Wgolf (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to prove notability. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janji-Janji[edit]

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

Contested prod-unotable song that is a major COI Wgolf (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any sources, delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. AlbinoFerret 15:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 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. Clearly some delicious spam. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua David Evans[edit]

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

Non-notable Internet personality. Creator of the article seems to be confusing two people with the same name Jack1956 (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, i am not, its the same person, we have already concluded that! Whee did you get that i am confusing them, please? Its obvious that its only one person, as there are no other informations for that "second" one. You have obviously opened this request with a wrong idea, so you should close or withdraw this request. This person is an actor, director, lead singer, so, please, do not push removal of this article without reason. Article was just created, so, there are still a lot more to be added! Person is more then notable, with tons of sources about him! --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. While it may be the same person, his activities are not notable. Add the tons of sources you say exist and I'll look at the nomination again. Jack1956 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not add your "Delete" here, you are nominator, and nomination is your voice. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Evans is a nice guy and a good singer, but he has not satisfied the criteria of WP:ENT. Note that the confusion about about two people is my fault; Jack1956 must have picked up my earlier edit summary. Ąnαșταη is correct that Evans was connected with "New Stage" and "Take the Stage". My apologies to Jack and all. Nevertheless, here are the reasons why I do not think that Evans is currently notable (he may become notable in the future):

"New Stage" was a web parody of tv talent contests filmed in less than a month in September 2011. The series' website is dead. It does not appear to have attracted a significant audience, and I have not found any press reviews of the series.
"Take the Stage" was an unscripted web talent contest. It does not appear to have attracted a significant audience, and I have not found any press reviews of the series.
Evans' a capella boy band The Cat’s Pajamas is not notable per WP:MUSIC.
Evans performed on cruise ships as part of the entertainment. This does not satisfy WP:ENT.
Evans toured in a touring production of the Off-Broadway show Altar Boyz. This does not satisfy WP:ENT.
Here is what Evans says about Your Chance to Dance -- his group was only in one episode.
Evans' YouTube channel is currently providing him with his income. It is not one of the top 2,500 YouTube channels by number of subscribers, and is not one of the top 8,000 by number of views.
Evans' most prominent national press coverage has been about his engagement to Colleen Ballinger.

Per WP:ENT, Evans is not notable because he (1) has not had significant roles in multiple 'notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; (2) does not have a large enough fan base or a significant "cult" following on YouTube to bring him even into the top 2,500 YouTubers; and (3) has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The fact is that Evans scratched out a living for several years with a variety of singing, acting and modelling jobs – cruise ships, tours, advertising and online hosing/directing, without landing any important roles in major theatre productions, television or film. He has never won, or been nominated for, a major singing or acting award, has not been signed by a record label and has not released any music albums. His YouTube music videos have achieved very modest viewership. He left The Cat's Pajamas in 2014 to move to Los Angeles, where he has currently abandoned acting to focus on building his YouTube channel, at which he is making some progress, and to support his fiance's very successful YouTube and touring comedy career. It is possible that Evans will become notable in his on right in the future, but he is not there yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per ENT, this seems ridiculous in keeping. Non-notable and certainly not worthy of keeping. Cassianto ^Talk 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above: there isn't anything notable at the moment: that may change in future, but there isn't enough there just yet. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; spam. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 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 keep. Moves should be discussed here. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloves syndrome[edit]

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

Was listed for speedy delete "copyvio of http://www.clovessyndromefoundation.org/ and related pages", but "the life of our daughter" in the original article text seems to show that the same person uploaded the same text to Wikipedia and http://www.clovessyndromefoundation.org/ . I have changed the article from an appeal to neutrally descriptive text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Two of the references, seemingly neutral, document the syndrome's existence. Glad the article has been reworded. Tapered (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actually a pretty interesting disease. Needs improved sourcing but there are reasonable reviews available. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could definitely be improved, but the topic is legitimate and the current text is better than no article at all. Looie496 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to CLOVES syndrome? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a move to this title would seem appropriate, but this is not the place to discuss moves, only notability. Everymorning talk 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Simply because a medical condition is rare is not a valid reason for deletion. Channel 5 (UK) very recently ran a documentary about CLOVES that played throughout the UK. As more is known about this condition and more people turn to Wikipedia for information, the article can be improved. Siberian Husky (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nicely sourced. AlbinoFerret 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 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. Fails. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Fails WP:CORP and WP:SOAPBOX and no sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:51, 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 00:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specialist-baiting[edit]

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

Possible neologism (only 25 results in Google Scholar for "spetseedstvo" and 73 for "specialist-baiting"), no citations in article given. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources in English for the general use of this term including Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union 1921-1934 by Sheila Fitzpatrick which is mentioned as the source in this article but not cited properly, Factory and Community in Stalin’s Russia by Kenneth M. Straus, and Freedom and Terror in the Donbas by Hiroaki Kuromiya. I get 653 results searching for it in Russian language books [1]. There would likely be more results in Ukrainian, Polish, etc. The article needs improvement, but this was a notable phenomenon in Soviet society. I can see about cleaning up the article, or someone else can, but I don't think deletion is warranted. Rosario Berganza 19:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is (at least nowadays) somewhat obscure and the article obviously needs improvement, but a look at the GScholar results that the nominator disparages seems to show quite a varied enough treatment of the term and its historical context to allow this improvement, and there seem to be some further good GBooks results. PWilkinson (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is definitely not a neologism, but rather a phenomenon of the Soviet 1920s and 1930s. The question here is whether the page can ever be expanded beyond a dictionary-type stub. I think it can. The citation above of Sheila Fitzpatrick and Hiroaki Kuromiya above in on the mark. Another historian whose work could probably be mined profitably is Lewis Siegelbaum. Specialist-baiting was part of the economic history of the late 1920s and early 1930s especially that saw thousands of engineers and factory experts brought in from Germany and the United States especially to aid in the First Five Year Plan. I suppose if there is a logical merge target for the phrase, it would be to a piece on this topic — but I don't think such a piece exists at this time nor am I exactly sure what the logical title for a piece on that topic would be. Even as a stub dictionary definition sort of piece, I think a case can be made for this article. Carrite (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There doesn't seem to be a piece on Спецеедство (literally: "specialist eating") in Russian WP. I find WP's coverage of the First FYP to be really bad. There is probably in the long run a merge target for this term, but there needs to be a greatly expanded article on the first FYP with a specialized sub-article on the importation of Western spetsy written first. Western specialists in the First Five Year Plan would be the encyclopedic topic, I think, something like that — and spetseedstvo a few paragraphs inside of that. I think the current stub should be preserved until we get to that logical point, at which time a redirect would make good logical sense. I suppose if this had to end in a redirect now Shakhty affair might be a good target, although that piece is pretty terrible, too. We need to switch gears and start writing more on Soviet history, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 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. As below. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christina England[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to indicate the subject's notability. Sam Walton (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are all from LDS church sources, no other documentation of notoriety. Tapered (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As pointed out above, limited sources from church based websites does not prove notability. AlbinoFerret 16:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as above. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the sources provided by South America, below, the article's subject is found to have met WP:BASIC and to have had a cup of tea with it. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Madan[edit]

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

Page that keeps on getting prods removed, anyway a actress that falls under too soon Wgolf (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete this page, she is most popular actress in indian television who plays Ishani in popular Ekta Kapoor's tv show Meri Aashiqui Tum Se Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.187.191 (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree that it falls under 'too soon'. As a result it fails notability. Nath1991 (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google news search brings up at least 10 pages of results. AlbinoFerret 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Ch an der 16:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, albeit to a weak degree. Source examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy DeLoach Parkway[edit]

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

Non-notable road that does not have any independent sources about the road. Does not pass the SNG WP:USRD/NT and does not appear to pass the GNG. Removing the biography of the minor politician the road is named after we are left with almost no details as to why this named road is notable and should be included. A guide to a similar article would be President George Bush Turnpike. This was previously prodded for "Non-notable road named for non-notable mayor" and has recently been contested at WP:REFUND, but because there was copyright violations, the revision with the prod was not restored. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quite a lot has been written about the road. Yes some of the stories are routine "traffic accident occurred", but many are not. There are sources about its construction, public debate over its safety, and so on. Unless I'm mistaken, these are the kinds of sources that are normally accepted to establish road notability - certainly there is more about this road than most short state highways which are considered "automatically" notable. Being a short stub at current is hardly a reason for deletion, especially considering it was just restored yesterday. The sources to expand it clearly exist. I would think a few words about the guy it was named after are warranted in the content, but regardless that is not a matter for AfD to decide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate my point, taking a quick look at President George Bush Turnpike, as suggested, seems to indicate this road is comparable in possible sourcing. Certainly creating sections on "accidents and incidents" and "expansions" would be easy to do; "history" is no doubt possible, although would take some effort and use of official documents (as is done in the Bush Turnpike article). What is lacking is content, not sources, and considering the article was just restored yesterday after being deleted many years ago, there is plenty of possibility of expansion occurring with a bit of patience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect A Contested Prod is always fair game immediately for AfD, the "quite a lot" that has been written is routine non-notable coverage which does not establish notability, ergo your reasoning for keeping is flawed at best (and willfully ignorant if less than best). Hasteur (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any page is "fair game" for an AfD at any time; no one said otherwise... Your argument, as worded, is about content, so the fact the article had only existed for 1 day is a perfectly legitimate thing to point out. If you are going to go around calling people "willfully ignorant" you might want to at least read all of their argument first as I specifically acknowledged some of the coverage is routine and then pointed out examples that aren't. I then went on to compare this article's potential to that of an article you yourself offered as a good example of this genre and found the available sourcing could produce a similar article. AfD judges potential (what I showed), not current state (what you argued). Since you chose to ignored 2/3drs of my argument in an attempt to paint me in a negative light, maybe you should be applying that "willingfully ignorant" label to yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD judges potential then we would never delete anything becasue everything shows potential. Every new word starts somewhere and FerngelDorp may be the way we describe how interstellar travel works in the future, so by your own reasoning it can't be deleted because it shows potential. Pleas re-read WP:CRYSTAL and realize that your arguments (and your equally ill tempered response to my pointing out your mis-application of established consensus and policy) are still wrong. To Review: This is a sub-stub article about a local named "bypass highway" that is only 8.9 miles long named for an already adjudged non-notable local politician, Content of the "article" is so below standards that either this needs to be either deleted outright (as the reasoning for the original prod is still valid), userfied into a willing user's space (and not restored unless it can significantly overcome the challange presented by this AFD) or sent to Draft space to be improved as the standards for creation have significantly improved since this article was originally created. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As long as reliable sources are found (check GDOT's website, too), the article should be kept. Also, it must be expanded and brought into a better format. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As such, I'm assuming that this is really a Delete as per AFD established consensus "Articles must demonstrate that they meet the inclusion requirements". As it currently stands I have reviewed what "evidence" there is and find no compelling reliable sources to keep this in mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and notable. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples: [6], [7], [8], [9] (p. 9), [10] (short article). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AirTrain LaGuardia[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Article is about a proposed rail line that was briefly mentioned by news outlets earlier this year, but otherwise may not even be built or make it to the planning stage. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AirTrain LaGuardia project was announced as a plan, not an idea, by the Governor, who said that the state has the cash to fund the project according to the lengthy NY Daily News article referenced (hardly a "brief mention"). Other sources with extensive coverage are cited in our article, and there has been subsequent stories as well e.g. http://observer.com/2015/02/transit-experts-question-cuomos-450-million-price-tag-for-laguardia-airtrain/. The idea of a rail link to this airport has a long history as well, e.g. http://gothamist.com/2014/02/06/dream_direct_rail_service_to_la_gua.php citing a plan from 2003. LGA has ranked in the top 30 airports of the world 2006-2013, so major proposals regarding it are notable. Is there a chance AirTrain LaGuardia may never be built? Of course there is, but the resulting controversy would still be a notable subject for a Wikipedia article, much like New York City's long delayed Second Avenue Subway.--agr (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another feature article in the New York Times from March 11: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/nyregion/tracing-the-route-of-a-proposed-airtrain-to-la-guardia-airport.html?_r=0 --agr (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an article about a well-verified proposal, like the Lower Manhattan – Jamaica / JFK Transportation Project, which doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. It is well-referenced and may be of note to other readers. Let's not delete it prematurely. Epic Genius (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (Modified. Epic Genius (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Verified proposal that passes WP:N. Source examples: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with air train since it was planed but never carried out and does not exist. Who knows the T train or the N,Q,7 lines may be extended to La Guardia airport in the future? Merge since the ariticle is too small but relevant to the Airtrain idea.Doorknob747 (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your merge target, AirTrain, is a disambiguation page. There are 5 other articles besides this one listed.--agr (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment, then merge with AirTrain new york city or AirTrain JFK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentLaGuardia Airport makes the most sense for a merge. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commentThen there is a problem with that, since it would be deleted , because, it is not part of laguardia airport and never as. And there was no news of that it will definitely be 100% part of it in the future, so technically, it can not support it self their, and would ultimately be deleted. If, there is no place to merge this article, then I think the article and its contents should be deleted and forgotten about. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's been a while since I've read WP:CRYSTAL closely and after careful review I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL applies. That "NOT" page is about "unverified speculation", not heavily verified plans or proposals. There is nothing in WP:CRYSTAL that bans articles about planned or proposed projects that are the subject of in-depth independent coverage.--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as analogizing to WP:HAMMER. This is in the Executive budget, which most likely will pass in 4-5 weeks. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Times has posted details about the route, a budget plan has been shaped in the past 24 hours, and the final budget should be passed in the next 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (incredulous knights). — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 00:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Penrhos Knights[edit]

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

Non-notable local folk myth and/or conspiracy theory. No reliable sources found. The usage of an university article cannot be verified, as any kind of bibliographic information is missing - "claiming that Parry himself may have been a Penrhos Knight" is pure speculation anyway. The 2nd paragraph contains WP:OR speculation ("are believed ...") without any reference. The 3rd paragraph is based on an unspecified inaccessible article to the Cambrian News, a regional tabloid with questionable historical expertise and fact-checking. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Penrhos knights is an old move redirect and should be deleted as well, if the main article is removed. GermanJoe (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole article lacks credibility. The very possibility that there should be a body of knights who had a continuous existence from the 17th century to recent times is wholly incredible. I suspect a WP:HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created in 2011, no sources, notability is questionable. AlbinoFerret 19:12, 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 Speedy Deleted (G12) by DGG. nac –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziznasseralkhalifa[edit]

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

WP:SPAM, a promotional article about this person, eligible for speedy deletion but someone other than the author removed the speedy deletion template without explanation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- There are enough of sources that i was able to find during a very quick google search Here are some more [16], [17],[18],[19] and qdb is a very important bank in qatar. This page needs to be moved and also rewritten to some extent because I was able find many copyright violations.Nicky mathew (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can write a proper article at the correct location and let this one continue on to deletion. As it is, I've re-speedied it on account of the copyright violation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will write one when i get some spare time. Happy editing Nicky mathew (talk) 20:34, 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 Userfy. Out-of-process closure, as there are some delete !votes and I commented below, but I think this is a better solution under the circumstances. This article has been identified here as a student contribution from a class not integrated into the education program; per that thread, education program is engaging now; makes sense not to delete these contributions piecemeal before the education program has reached a resolution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemicals That Are Toxic And Essential[edit]

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

The opening paragraph of this article "...As it appears in Figure 1..." make is clear this is a copy and paste from somewhere. (I cannot find a source so it may be a school project or somesuch.) Whatever the source, the article is an essay and only repeats what is already in Wikipedia at the articles of the four individual subjects. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTESSAY. Tigraan (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content duplicates existing articles. It is full of factual errors as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ESSAY, copied and paste from somewhere, which duplicates existing articles. -- 120.17.0.71 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as tagged on the page - the concept certainly is notable, but this needs so much work as to be useless in its current state. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per argument by Bearian. Do not delete since a lot of work has gone into it, and it can potentially be improved on. For the record, I wouldn't automatically advocate for a class assignment to be put into user space. Once a page is sufficiently mature, it belongs as an article. --IO Device (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, pretty sure this is homework (see here). Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:57, 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. The article's subject is found to have fallen into a case of WP:BLP1E. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Thornton[edit]

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

All of the coverage seems to be about allegations of sexual abuse/harassment and his resigning from his position on the USJA board. There's nothing to show he was ever convicted of anything and I think this may be a case of WP:BLP1E. Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough call. There were allegations, there were resignations and there was a rule change. How related they all were is debatable and not really backed up by sources. I don't see the subject of the article as notable but if he was the center of a scandal with far reaching consequences that might make a case. By the way the rule change that this apparently brought about just brought the AAU into line with other organizations that work with kids. I am going to hold off a vote here for a bit. There was some previous discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Fletcher Thornton Peter Rehse (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do worry a little since these are allegations not convictions and in reality he resigned in the face of the allegations (he denied everything) rather than kicked-off.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was kicked out of the United States Judo Association. That seems like a conviction. CrazyAces489 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one of the articles clearly quotes the chief executive of USA Judo (the sport's governing body in the U.S.) as saying he was not asked to resign. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I would say keep. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge into USA Judo His actions over several years wasn't a single event. It brought about major rule changes for all the Judo federations. Him being thrown out was reported by ESPN , NY Times, USA Today, etc. All major organizations. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Thrown out of USJA [25] [26]. This speaks about the implementation for background checks. [27] CrazyAces489 (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls under not tabloid. If we just say he was "the subject of numerous allegations" we engage in attack without specificity. This is a weak article that seems to be determined to avoid saying anything that is informative for fear of getting charged with liable, so we might as well just delete instead of having a fluff article that says nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that any of the accusations were ever proven. There's also nothing to show the accusations had any impact on any USJA policies. The only thing that's well documented is his resignation and that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Judo Association, where (ideally) well-sourced, referenced content on the whole affair (e.g., the New York Times article) should be included. Neutrality^talk 01:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the lack of any actual convictions. The New York Times article says "the sport’s most prominent organization, USA Judo, which oversees 8,000 athletes and the Olympic team, has taken no action. Thornton is on the executive board and his duties have included overseeing the board’s standards." It also says "Thornton, 69, of Middletown, Calif., was never charged with a crime and labeled the accusations false." The USJA is a minor organization, while USA Judo is the major governing body. Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete USJA really is a minor organization and the resignation of an official is not noteworthy - I don't think a redirect makes any sense.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:41, 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. The article's subject is found to have been spinning and splitting, which as a filmography it shouldn't be doing. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moammar Rana filmography[edit]

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

Contested prod-a redirect be the best I think. Wgolf (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You don't even need a redirect, the information is already included at Moammar Rana. The list isn't so long that the article needs to be split.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary spin out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:58, 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. The article's subject is found to have not met General N. Guideline. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Eng[edit]

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

With a reference only to an article written by her dance partner and nothing else found, this article is about a subject who fails to meet notability guidelines. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significance coverage. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:44, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion herein or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author, where the nomination advocates merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Falcon's Feathers[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author Wgolf (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion herein or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author, where the nomination advocates merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Empty Envelope[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion herein or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author, where the nomination advocates merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadly Dungeon[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion herein or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author, where the nomination advocates merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Canary Caper[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author Wgolf (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion herein or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author, where the nomination advocates merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bald Bandit[edit]

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

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Absent Author Wgolf (talk) 17:53, 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 per WP:SK#1. The nomination has not advanced a position for deletion, advocating merging or redirection. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Absent Author[edit]

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

A novel that could be redirectred or merged into the author, there are several of these books, see also: The Bald Bandit, The Canary Caper, The Deadly Dungeon, The Empty Envelope and The Falcon's Feathers Wgolf (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-I have added AFD's for all of these. Also here is where they can be redirected: A to Z Mysteries. Wgolf (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisoners with whole-life tariffs[edit]

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

Oh dear. Where should I begin with this? Firstly, there are several unsourced entries, and several people on this list are not notable/have no articles of their own. Some fall into both categories. Secondly, this list is entirely UK centred. Thirdly, I'm failing to see how this is anything other than WP:LISTCRUFT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And clean-up. Remove anything unsourced (shouldn't be that difficult to find a WP:RS for any entry here). So what if several people don't have their own article? See WP:SAL for more. If it's UK-centric, then a simple re-name of the article is needed. Being handed a whole-life tariff is quite notable in its own right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as necessary per Lugnuts. Of course this is UK-centric. Whole-life tariffs are a UK feature. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Regarding the fact that some people on the list do not have an article, I would say such a list is appropriate for summarising the cases of those offenders who do not meet the notability requirements for having a separate article, per the one-event exception described in WP:LISTPEOPLE. Perhaps a rename would help clarify it is UK-centric, but the first paragraph makes that clear. I would oppose exapnding the scope of the article since each country has its own procedures surrounding life imprisonment. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and easily sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -clearly notable. per.WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up, as per the rationale of Lugnuts and others above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep: also, any personal, identifiable, or other information that must be hidden from public view can be revision deleted or oversighted. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 03:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Charles Vacca[edit]

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

This has been at AFD before but I'm not liking that the girl's parents have now been identified in the article. We should consider this again to see if we now have a consensus. The previous close said, "People disagree about whether this is an incident with long-lasting impact. I guess we'll have to wait and see..." Now that some time has passed, there doesn't seem to have been significant continuing coverage or consequences which would make this more than a routine shooting accident. The topic therefore fails policies such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've come here after removing that section on grounds of human decency. Seriously we shouldn't make it that easy to identify this nine year old. Whatever your views on gun control the identity of the child is not essential to the story but naming her parents risks indirectly identifying her. Regardless of whether consensus is with me or not I would request that section not be restored unless this discussion has consensus to do so - the information is in the article history. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep no valid deletion reason here. Lots of news coverage too. However caution should be taken, but WP:NOTCENSORship. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more detail to the nomination to indicate the policy-based reasons for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage lasted long after the event. However, I may vote delete on the 5th nomination, so keep it up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage? I'm not seeing much beyond the immediate event and what there is just seems to be journalistic, human-interest stuff. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, just journalistic stuff, I admit that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...The genie is out of the bottle...The parents names are now in the history section and can be viewed by anyone with the wherewithal to do so. The only way to rectify this matter is to delete the article and then recreate it using a different name. Perhaps..."The Accidental Shooting of Charles Vacca".--RAF910 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "only way to rectify this matter" Huh? or we can just delete that line in the edit history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for any misunderstanding...If someone clicks "View History" at the top of the page they can recall the parents names in the edit history. I'm afraid that there's no way that I know of to delete that information.--RAF910 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need admin rights to hide the edit history. You can bring it to Wikipedia:BLP noticeboard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering closing this discussion as I think you are looking for WP:REVDEL or WP:OVERSIGHT to delete a single revision of the page, not the entire thing. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the page remains then you can't easily keep details from reappearing. It all needs to go. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can edit any page of Wikipedia, we will have to delete all of Wikipedia. Someone might add their name to any/every page. The whole wiki concept needs to go. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Sorry, but there's nothing resembling a valid AfD statement in the nomination. The concerns about the paragraph should've been addressed on the talk page, BLPN or the Oversight team. Not AfD, on a obviously notable topic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more details to the nomination. My position is that the topic does not pass the relevant notability guideline: WP:EVENT. Andrew D. (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The incident was mentioned again yesterday in a paper reporting on the latest legislative action triggered by this incident. Thus the notability, and long-lasting influence on subsequent events, of the incident has been fairly well established. The identification of the parents must be speedily revdeled/oversighted, though; immediate action is certainly required there. Kraxler (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite good at finding sources but only found some news coverage of the event and immediate aftermath. If you have found a good recent source then please share some details so that we can verify it and understand the legislative context. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was about to mention it, and then was called away IRL, and forgot it. It's ref # 18 in the article. And it seems I confused the publication date and the retrieval date. It was published actually 9 days ago, on March 16. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An argument can be had about names but no argument can be had about the existence of the article itself. ResMar 13:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Oversight the versions with the identifying information. The incident has lead to (potential) changes in Arizona law, as evidenced by the "Legislature" section of the article and the sources cited there. The event is notable. Versions with identifying information can be oversighted and removed from the article history. If there are concerns about the information creeping back in then pending changes review can be enabled. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced notable event. AlbinoFerret 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on sources. Everyking (talk) 21:23, 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. The article's subject is found to have not been covered, and it's raining. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microspace Global[edit]

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

This article is about a company lacking the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article not reliable sources or are primary sources. Note that this may be part of a PR effort as the editor who created this article, User:Kemiayinde, self-identifies on her user page as having "outstanding proficiency in ... Search Engine Optimization [SEO], Social Media Marketing [SEM], Online Media Marketing". See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Akinniyi Ajiboyede -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any evidence of WP:N. In the future, when the subject of the article becomes notable, someone with no WP:COI will write about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:15, 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. Another article whose subject was not covered... during the rainstorm. (and hopefully the someone, who may or may not write an article about this subject in the future, doesn't write it here... the mainspace is much better suited.) — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Akinniyi Ajiboyede[edit]

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

This article is about a person that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The references present in the article do not establish notability, and many cases are from his company websites. Note that this may be part of a PR effort as the editor who created this article, User:Kemiayinde, self-identifies on her user page as having "outstanding proficiency in ... Search Engine Optimization [SEO], Social Media Marketing [SEM], Online Media Marketing". See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microspace Global -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: I can't find any evidence of WP:N. In the future, when the subject of the article becomes notable, someone with no WP:COI will write about it here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:12, 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 speedily deleted by User:GB fan per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Scorthorne[edit]

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

Presumably-BLP w/ 0 sources. Appears to be actor just starting out. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. ― Padenton |☎ 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton |☎ 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines due to no significant coverage in independent sources. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-too soon or auto bio. Wgolf (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Beloye, Ryazan Oblast[edit]

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

Fails notability; -'seen on a map' not equalling WP:RS _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, it's not just that the place appears on maps. There is also a reference, albeit in Russian, but it appears to support the article. WP:GEOLAND seems to suggest that this is enough for a lake. The bar on Wikipedia seems to be very low for geographic entities (perhaps because being a gazetteer is one of the Five Pillars?), so I will follow this discussion with great interest. ubiquity (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's an almost identical article on ru.wikipedia, which is now language linked. -Arb. (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Reliable Russian language source linked in this article and the nearly 6 year old ru.wiki article. Rosario Berganza 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should follow Russian Wikipedia on this matter. Carrite (talk) 12:36, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sujan Shakya[edit]

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

~~Contested prod-non notable celebrity who has only a few roles so far and no reliable sources Wgolf (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think a redirect to Non-Summit be the best. Wgolf (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is current mainly cast member in two series. not one. Kanghuitari (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I mainly edit Non-Summit and Where Is My Friend's Home pages, and the addition of this college educated Nepalese person was a fairly significant event, given the history of the indigent Nepalese immigrant population to South Korea. In addition, Shakya has become a popular member of both of this "cable" tv station's shows (which does not usually warrant a lot of attention.) I vote that we keep his page up, for a while, see if it garners more media (ie. Required WP source materials) and go from there.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-My bad I thought it said 2 films not 2 shows, well I'll let this play out first to see if I want to withdraw or not. Wgolf (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated some English and Korean references and added bio. info. Thank you.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he fits guidelines plus the unique context should allow this page to remain Asdklf; (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withrdaw-I am withdrawing. Wgolf (talk) 16:33, 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: BLPPROD restored instead, per discussion on RfPP. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Sahota[edit]

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

BLP prod keeps on getting removed by the page creator as well as multiple IP's. Unsourced bio of a person who just might not be notable enough for here. Wgolf (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fell under too soon; recommend falling under too late in the future. — Coffee // stole my cup // and beans // 01:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Franchizze[edit]

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

Contested prod of a singer who falls under too soon as of now Wgolf (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This someone starting out and releasing music, not achieving notoriety in music, as per the references. At this point a vanity page. Tapered (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the sources provided below, I'm withdrawing this nomination. (Thanks go to User:Opabinia regalis for finding those fantastic sources.) The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney E Martin[edit]

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

Every source in the article is primary - including the New York Times piece, which is just an excerpt of a conversation between Martin and another feminist. Therefore, the article's subject does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG, as the subject has not been covered directly and in detail by reliable secondary sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While every source in the article is primary, I don't think that necessarily means that Martin is not notable--it could also reflect a bias toward who gets profiled by secondary sources. Furthermore, the page was created by students, and deletion seems a steep price for a rectifiable confusion about sources. Finally, Martin is a published author who has be interviewed on national radio and given a TEDtalk; all of these (easily verifiable) facts would seem to qualify her as sufficiently notable; especially when Wikipedia has a stated goal of being more inclusive toward women and women's topics. Daclausen (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have searched through Google news for Courtney E Martin, and there are many entries. However all are either primary writings by her, or are only brief mentions, for example saying she wrote a book. ~~So I suggest that this page be moved to a Draft space page until it is referenced suitably.~~ Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. I saw this and thought "What? Of course she's notable." This article in The Nation is in-depth coverage of the femfuture event and its context, with a shorter discussion of the same event in Bitch Magazine; the book she co-edited, Click, was reviewed here in Feminist Teacher (I don't have access but someone with Project MUSE access can have a look), she was profiled in Sadie Magazine; she's discussed multiple times in this book, A Little F'd Up: Why Feminism is Not a Dirty Word (ISBN 1580053718). Maybe you need to turn safesearch off? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The A Little F'd Up: Why Feminism is Not a Dirty Word book is not exactly independent of her since she wrote the promotional cover text for it. But two of your other refs looks independent and substantial, so I will change to keep. (Her name is not always used with the "e".) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because she's such a prolific writer online you have to go a few pages deep into Google to find things written about her, rather than things she's written but I think the evidence above is sufficient for her to be notable. Arianna (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a WP:Deletionist, but she seems Notable. The article should be trimmed, though, with all the stuff based on blogs and other such non-reliable sources removed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:13, 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. Only the author requested to keep the article. UtherSRG (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II[edit]

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

Written in the same style and with the same sources as Frontschwester, which has been nominated for deletion because of sockpuppetry. Check User has not identified a relationship between Habilemonkac and Sju hav (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav), but the topic and source overlap more than suggest that we are talking about one person behind these accounts. 4ing (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has a language link to Norwegian. There are numerous books in Norwegian on this topic, written by unmerited amateur historians. --Habilemonkac (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV and pretty much an exact copy of Frontschwester, which is already up for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A copy of a G5 article currently in discussion (badly sourced and POV problems too). I am still convinced, that the whole article and its copy should be deleted and recreated from scratch based on reliable sources from established experts. Relying on amateur historians, tabloid articles and a 2014/15 thesis is not a good start for such a topic. GermanJoe (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks like a duplicate created to circumvent the AfD discussion of Frontschwester.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Frontschwester article does share text with this one. This article has improvements on some of the other article's problems: "There may be something in here that is worthy of its own article also on WPEN; but both title and scope needs to be better defined". --Habilemonkac (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment - This article already cited Omer Bartov. Now it also cites Peter Tudvad, Marie Aakre and Editor of Culture at Flensborg Avis. These citations have replaced many of the quotes from the 2014 dissertation. Regarding "looks like a duplicate created to circumvent": Frontschwesters include German citizens who were non-volunteers. On the other hand, not all Foreign volunteers for nursing, were Frontschwesters. In other words, the topics are different, but the articles do cover some common ground. --Habilemonkac (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Frontschwester (or vice versa). Better still userify until the author can provide a single well argued article. These are covering the same ground and using the same main sources. We do not need both. The subject matter is a significant topic, but currently there are far too many redlinks and it relies far too much in a master's dissertation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After today's edits I would not say that the article in any way depends on the one mentioned Master's degree dissertation. However claims regarding conclusions of research (mentioned in the Research section) might need further discussion. Regarding a merge: the German frontschwester Ernestine Thren was not a foreign volunteer. Why would we want to merge the article about foreign volunteers to an article about her and other frontschwesters? --Habilemonkac (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and rewrite) based on review. The article is badly written and has serious WP:RS issues. If the topic is notable for a stand alone article, it should be rewritten from scratch. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a Nursing in Germany. Should not there be a more generic article first on Nursing during World War II or Nursing in Nazi Germany? I'm thinking of WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over, starting with Nursing in Nazi Germany. Agree that it falls underWP:TNT. BakerStMD T|C 18:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jimmy Wales did not start a wikipedia called the "We never create subtopic articles before a main-topic article"-wikipedia. This "Foreign volunteers for nursing for Germany during World War II"-article is a subtopic of Nursing in Germany. (I agree that there also is a need for numerous new articles about subtopics of "Nursing in Germany", but that really should not be a focus of the discussion on this page.) However a relevant question is, should this article be renamed (perhaps "Foreign volunteering for nursing for Germany during World War II"). Also one should be aware that the topic of the Norwegian Frontschwesters (and their Frontsøster nursing assistants) is a politicized topic in Norway: The president of a large humanitarion organization here, said this year about the Norwegian ["SS nurses"] Frontschwesters [and their nursing assistants], that it is never wrong for nurses to give first aid to soldiers! I have steered away from this topic in this article, in part because the coverage of that topic and other topics in the (Norwegian) Frontsøster article, have a slanted POV: these "SS nurses" only did humanitarian work, and should never have been convicted. If we delete this article, maybe we will all feel better about sweeping the topic of the humanitarianism of the "Germanic" SS nurses, under the carpet. Jimmy Wales did not start "The Feelgood Wikipedia", but such a wikipedia might be a desired evolution for a majority on this thread? --Habilemonkac (talk) 09:58, 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. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fill the Void (band)[edit]

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

Not notable. Amazon MP3's top 100 free MP3 albums is not a good chart. Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the sources provided, mi2n is a press release, vents is just the band talking about themselves, other two are blogs, not reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:BAND. Jbh (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You Can Fuck Off is the name of their first single. The trivial Amazon fact in the article doesn't cut WP:N, WP:BAND or WP:SONG. Delete it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You Can Fuck Off was indeed there first single. Cant find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow talk 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Can Fuck Off may or may not have been their first single, I can't find any sources to verify. The only source cited inline is a press release, the others aren't any better. Searching the internet, I cannot verify that the subject of the article even exists. This certainly fails WP:GNG and doesn't come close to meeting any WP:BAND criteria. Delete the article. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band with one single. AlbinoFerret 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:BAND / WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 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 Speedy Delete under G12 by RHaworth; article was found to be infringement of the site Optimale indicated.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Tropical Plants: The identification and cultivation of over 3000 tropical plants[edit]

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

This seems to be a recreation of Encyclopedia of Tropical Plants, which has been deleted twice before. It's still a clearly promotional article, so let's review whether it's notable, and should be rewritten, or not notable, and should be deleted. Slashme (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to copyvio WP:G12 (tagged article accordingly so it can be checked out by others). The article text itself is an exact copy from Bateman Publishing. The rest, book reviews, are also simply copied. Sounds also very promotional. Optimale ^Gu 11:50, 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 snow keep. Deletion is not on the table for what multiple sources have called "the most popular social network in China". If anything, a cleanup discussion is warranted on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WeChat[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep At least the first version contains nothing promotional.Antigng (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Antigng (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Hard to believe that this was nominated for deletion. No sign I could see of advertising. Its a pretty clean article with useful encyclopedic info and proper citation of sources about a topic of substantial and growing notability. Let's assume that the nomination was made in error and close it immediately. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 05:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a nomination made in error. If you look at the article you see several empty section. But when you look closer, you can also see a lot of sources coming from WeChat itself, is parent company Tencents Holding or related companies as CogoBuy. The Banner talk 16:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that can be fixed. In general, I don't see a lot of promotional language in the article, the article is not advertising. Having a lot of primary sources directly affiliated with the subject is not a proper reason for deletion. I've added a banner to the page notifying editors of the need to fix this problem. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 16:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Problems with the article's tone and content are to be dealt within the article. The topic itself is unquestionably notable in the Chinese world. _dk (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I needed to know this information, so I came to the article. clearly notable. RfD is ridiculous. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 22:41, 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 Undercover Brothers Ug. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay K. Mulungi[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to have a stand alone article. He's part of a notable group, but notability cannot be inherited. Versace1608 (Talk) 09:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Undercover Brothers Ug. Available coverage that I could find all relate to Undercover Brothers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to group (duo) article Undercover Brothers Ug. Notability not established for individual member. Fylbecatulous talk 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NMUSIC, musicians who are notable for their work with a band, and cannot be reliably sourced as having independent notability for anything outside of the band context, get redirects to the band rather than standalone BLPs. Redirect to Undercover Brothers Ug. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duolingo[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 09:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article may need to be rewritten, but the company definitely meets GNG. [28][29][30][31][32] Many of the 50+ references on the article page also show that the article meets GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not questioning the notability. I nominate the article because it is one big piece of advertisement. The Banner talk 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no question Duolingo is notable, Natag's links establish that. TvojaStara (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a subject of importance, not judging the current content of the article. TudorTulok (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notability is easily verified---the software is widely reported on. If the article is poor, fix it, don't waste everyone's time with spurious AdDs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And usually, nobody even tries to fix it, leaving an advertisement an advertisement. And thereby undermining the Wikipedia policy that that advertising is not allowed. The Banner talk 14:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not really advertisement. I would call it a fan perspective. Duolingo is certainly notable, but in a large part due to their PR prowess and not due to "deep historic significance". IMO they do not "deserve" such detailed article. Yet there is a lot of people willing to add to the article in current state and update it. I added a fixup AfD rewrite template to the article, so this discussion is not forgotten after it is closed.TvojaStara (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Banner: There are nearly five million articles on WP, and all the volunteer editors have different priorities as to which articles they want to fix. This one's actually been on my mind (because I use the software regularly and there are lots of sources out there to work from), but I likely won't get to it in the near future. Meanwhile, there's nothing stopping you from taking a crack at it. Looking at your edit count, you obviously know how to do it, so why are you wasting time with this AfD instead of fixing it? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not wasting your time, in fact you are wasting my time. You stated that the article have to be fixed by normal editing but nothing is happening. And because I know that nothing will be happening, I suggest to apply WP:TNT to solve the advertising. The Banner talk 10:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - What an astoundingly clueless response. Plaese, don't waste your or anyone else's time here anymore. Someone with your edit history has no excuse for pulling this garbage. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - LOL, ditto... The Banner talk 12:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A source review demonstrates that the topic passes WP:WEBCRIT. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, as per WP:ATD. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As Curly Turkey suggests, the article can always be fixed if it sounds overly promotional, but Duolingo itself has a very strong notability. DrCooldudeAlt (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It's clearly notable and the person suggesting deletion agrees. If the problem is the tone, then just change the thone. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 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, though I suggest some major rewriting is due. UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Rock Spirit[edit]

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

Synthesis of published material. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems too heavily based upon ideas from the TV show. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Jc86035: The Lion Rock Spirit is of great significance to Hong Kong people as this is a spirit that enabled Hong Kong people to overcome their challenges and transform Hong Kong into the current cosmopolitan city. It is also reviewed in multiple press articles, academic researches, and many officials have referred to the Lion Rock Spirit to boost the morale of Hong Kong people from social challenges. This spirit is also subject to changes according to the dynamic transformation of the social context in Hong Kong. It is suggested that our page is like an advertisement. However, the contents of this page are all referred to credible sources from news and academic researches. Besides, the TV series is only the origin of Lion Rock Spirit. The way of how Lion Rock Spirit is manifested in the daily lives of Hong Kong people in the 1970s and in modern days are also discussed. It is hoped that suggestions could be provided to improve this article so that it would not be subject to deletion. Thank you. Gpa4444 (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The subject of the article does indeed appear to be notable, and relevant to Hong Kong culture. Some of the sources are also solid. There does, however, appear to be extensive synthesis throughout. The article needs a major overhaul. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*@Jc86035:@Quinto Simmaco:: One paragraph regarding the multiculturalism in Hong Kong in the section "Existence of Lion Rock Spirit in modern Hong Kong" has been deleted, as it seems not quite related to the Lion Rock Spirit. Does it help to make the article less synthesized? Thank you. Gpa4444 (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*@Jc86035:@Quinto Simmaco:@Sameboat:: The sentences that are too subjective and concluded from information that are reflected from the articles have been deleted. Please take a look at the changes to see if the synthesis of references have been solved?Gpa4444 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meets the notability guideline. It needs improvement, not deletion. STSC (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@STSC:: Thank you for your suggestion. Would it be possible to give some suggestion to improve the article? Gpa4444 (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any improvement would be discussed on the article's Talk page. STSC (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A Talk section has been added to the article's Talk page.Gpa4444 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Aebersold's "Play-A-Long" series[edit]

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

Simply advertising. Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Aebersold series is the most used resource for high end jazz education. Its notability comes from its wide usage and the impact it has had on the nature of jazz pedagogy and therefore the nature of jazz playing. A brief Google Scholar search shows its academic popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storeye (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists of tables of contents are not encyclopedic content. Storeye's points would be good reasons to keep an article about the series, but this list is not useful. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If consensus ends up being so. Otherwise, a list of volumes in the Play-A-Long series (with brief descriptions, personnel, publication date, most recent edition, etc.) would be helpful instead. Eman235/talk 19:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This list links only to material farther down in the list. It seems to violate Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists and also is violative of WP:NOTCATALOG. In response to User:Storeye, the fact that the Aebersold series exists might be the basis for a good WP:Article, but not for this odd sort of WP:List. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur that the Aebersold repertoire is the most accessed set of practice tunes for skill building studying music. I disagree that this is simply a TOC listing, is appropriate and falls correctly under WP:SAL.Bugcrusher (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There may be an argument that this selective list of progressive works for the student falls under the US Supreme Court position quoted in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists: "The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers"? AllyD (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: a much more user-friendly list of songs in this series is here. I think we should turn this article into a list of volumes (see my suggestion above) in the series, (List of volumes in Aebersold's Play-A-Long series) with another article just for the series (Jamey Aebersold Play-A-Longs). Eman235/talk 23:01, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbuyi Nkitabungi[edit]

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

Not notable. Simply like a church pastor in other denominations. Ward_(LDS_Church)#Branch BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article shows potential for notability, no need to delete. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- While I am not familiar with LDS ranks and organisation, I have not reason to believe that LDS is a major religion in DRC, so that he would seem merely to be a NN pastor. The fact that he also works as a translator suggests tha the is not even a full timne pastor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 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. UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Storm[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-professional basketball team. Note: this article was previously kept at AfD here, but that was in 2007 and Wikipedia's policies were different then. Natg 19 (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent, reliable sources for this team. Does not meet WP:GNG as near as I can tell. Rikster2 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ok, more of a query - why delete this and not other ABA teams that went no where? As a closing admin, I would expect to be deleting a bunch of similar articles at once, for all the ABA teams that played a couple of seasons then disbanded. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, I decided to PROD many of the other ABA team articles, but I was unable to take this one to PROD because it had previously been kept at AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Marcou[edit]

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

Seems like a hard-working commercial artist, but he has not won any awards or had specific juried showings of his art. The references go to blogs, commercial sites, galleries of illustrations and material written by the subject of the article (including a Twitter feed). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have partially re-written the article, and taken out mention of social media weblinks and links to commercial sites. I have added several new references, and also moved many of the references that had been in the external link section up into the body of the article as inline citations. Referring to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals the subject has "significant or well-known work" such as all of the work and projects with Nike Inc. and has received significant coverage in "multiple independent periodical articles". The subject meets WP:GNG and meets the notability requirements WordSeventeen (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have covered and backed up all of the work that is mentioned in this article. I found many sourses and cited them. I made sure that all of the material that lead to journals, books and blogs are not written by the artist. The article now meets the requirements--Mike1582 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article is continuing to be infected by WP:Original research from websites which are not WP:Reliable sources, like this very recent one. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a new article and instead of being deleted it sould be included on wikipedia art projects to invite experienced wikipedians in the fields of art to contribute. This artist totally meets the notability criteria. Grigoros (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so Notable why are not Reliable sources taking note of him? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some Reliable sources that took note of Alexis Marcou. Future plc, Core77, Juxtapoz, Imagine Publishing, Behance, Adobe Systems, Derwent Cumberland Pencil Company.--Mike1582 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll do this one. Y'all are responsible for the rest of the series since you didn't list them in the AFD request. :) Cheers! UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Punchbowl Harvest[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK appears to be popular but only fansites and bookdealer sites found, could merge info into author article or create a series article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of upmerging into a series article: not really enough sources to deal with the items individually, but definitely seems to be enough for the series. I would recommend putting notifications on all of the novel pages, if you are working towards that option.Sadads (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now; not enough sources. -Augustabreeze (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Either create an article about the series or redirect to Monica Edwards#The Punch Bowl Farm series.
I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, which is required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monica Edwards#The Punch Bowl Farm series. Just one book in a series without an article of its own. NOTE TO THE CLOSER: All eleven books in the series (as linked from the Edwards article) are short stubs without RS identical to this one, and IMO should all be redirected to the author and "de-blued". Possibly these works were independently notable half a century ago, but they've long faded into obscurity since (e.g., they were republished in 2012, and are all currently sitting on Amazon without a single review). Pax 07:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:37, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 08:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wispin[edit]

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

WP:Notability, does not receive coverage from reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:04, 9 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) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including TouchArcade, Pocket Gamer, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar ⨹ 15:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six reviews on Metacritic. I'd say that anything that gets that much attention on Metacritic is notable. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic actually does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar ⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Move Would make alot more sense to start an article on the developer, Grumpyface Studios and have this be a section of it. This current one could redirect there then. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This game has enough sources to meet the general notability guideline and warrant its own article separate from the developer (which appears to only have passing mentions in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search). This is to say that this game is more notable than its developers. czar ⨹ 18:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game has only passing mentions at the references listed and a few reviews. WordSeventeen (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three reviews from WP:VG/RS vetted sources (as mentioned above) have been the precedent for sufficiency. czar ⨹ 18:44, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Watson[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:AUTHOR. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft unless and until better sources are found. I had better note that the article creator originally seems to have created the article in Draft space, had it turned down at AfC on 20 February and then created this article from a slightly improved version, without putting it through AfC again, on 27 February. Since then, the creator has significantly improved the article, even if not to the point where it yet proves notability. Meanwhile, the subject of the article, apparently quite independently of the article's creator, has tried adding a few references to the draft, submitted that to AfC and had it turned down. In effect, while there is still a draft version in existence, this version is better than the draft. Going back to the main question: I don't find the subject blatantly non-notable - publication by a publisher of the size of Orbit Books is more than most non-notable, and some notable, authors manage, and in my opinion the review by SF Crowsnest would count towards notability if there were other reviews from sources of comparable or greater stature. But, while both Locus and Tor.com have included Age of Iron on forthcoming publications lists, it doesn't (at least yet) seem to have a full review from either. But he has managed well so far for a first novel and, with two sequels due out in the next few months, I think that there is a good chance - though far from a certainty - that either they (or further publicity for the first novel, for instance, if it gets onto any significant awards shortlists) could push the subject over the notability threshold. But on current evidence, he isn't there yet. PWilkinson (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will defer to editors decision but worth pointing out that Locus, Tor.com are US-Centric sources to cite whereas Publishers Weekly, SF Crowsnest, Fantasy Faction (where it was a Best of 2014 title) are more recognised elsewhere. Yeine

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) 00:25, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

possible keep there is a fantasy fiction world, which has paid attention to this rookie author's first novel in a projected trilogy. I take User:Yeine's point about sites such as Fantasy Faction validating notability within a large community. Would feel more confidence in my vote if User:Yeine or someone else would ~~edit the hype out of the article now,~~ source assertion that he was/is a working freelance journalist of some scope, ~~and find a source stating that he has a publishing contract for the second (and third) novel in the trilogy.~~ He has a pub. date for 2nd novel and it may therefore make sense to close as NO CONSENSUS while we wait and see what attention that garners. (Also, Angus Watson is not an easy name to search. there is even a journalist named Angus Watson who made headlines [33] but who isn't this journalist named Angus Watson.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaz Jamirun Noor High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Non-notable, no references, original research. ~EdGl! 04:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Antigng (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this section of the very page you linked to, and judge the article based on notability criteria (WP:ORG, WP:N), not on common outcomes. ~EdGl! 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - High schools are kept regardless of sources. –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus, which is what WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES summarises. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per longstanding consensus at AfD that secondary schools of demonstrable existence are regarded as automatically notable. Yes, this article is a terrible stub at the moment, for what it is worth. Carrite (talk) 12:39, 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 Keep and rename to 'The Traffic in Women'. Michig (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Goldman: The Traffic in Women[edit]

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

Appears to be an WP:NOTESSAY discussing an unsourced and unidentified article. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nomination which appears to be trigger-happy and is unnecessarily harsh, in effect, on a brand new Wikipedia contributor who just started the article. wp:DONTBITETHENEWBIES, please. The AFD notice is the first contact given to the new editor. And it is awful to drag a newbie first to AFD where arcane acronyms are the jargon we speak in. It would be far better to {{welcome}} the person and seek some discussion. wp:BEFORE was not performed: no searching was done apparently, or the nominator would know more. The nomination is offbase because what "article" is being discussed is very clear by the title: it is "The Traffic in Women", a 1910 essay by anarchist writer Emma Goldman (1869-1940). And, it appears to be a summary of the essay, with appropriate quotes, so it is reasonable that the article carries some of the essay-like tone of the original. The essay is an important work. See Category:Essays and Category:Essay collections for context. Yes, it should probably be moved, to The Traffic in Women. Yes, for a mainspace article, it should be developed to include secondary coverage, criticism, historical perspective about the essay and its impact. I did some formatting and other edits to the article. However, wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP, and tagging, not deleting, is appropriate. --do ncr am 06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When creating a new article a huge box appears with advice for the article creator. Newbie or not, the advice was not followed. It appeared as some form of essay or homework assignment based on the original unidentified essay. Cudos for fixing it up, but your PoV about this AfD is unwelcome (such as the redirct message you created.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 12:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three days later: while most of the newbie original contributor's words have been changed, he/she did contribute by identifying that Wikipedia really should have an article on this topic, and took a try at it. I think that's significant.

My edit summary: "redirect, maybe temporarily, as target should perhaps be moved to here, after AFD if article is kept" is entirely neutral! It just functions to reserve the article name while this AFD is going on.--do ncr am 02:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~ This is not an encyclopaedia article about the essay, it is a heavily biased and opinionated review. I'd be interested to know in what way the previous editor thinks the paragraph beginning The article or essay emphasizes how women were forced into slave traffic and prostitution... is neutral, encyclopaedic writing rather than pov WP:OR. The rest is much the same, no real facts, just a pov essay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed a spam link to a commercial sales site (Amazon) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment In an effort to be constructive, I've removed the paragraph that I singled out above. It's clearly an unsourced and highly pov personal opinion about Goldman with no relevance to the article itself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further commentThanks to User:Bosstopher, I think this now meets our criteria. I made a few more edits, but just minor stuff. The article just needs moving to the correct title, but that can wait until we are done here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit to be more encyclopedic. Article is about a notable historical essay and is of decent length with references. Language can be improved to be less POV but I see no good reason to throw the whole thing in the bin.Storeye (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article upon which this essay is based doesn't appear in the main Emma Goldman article and so I am unconvinced of its notability. Even if this article weren't an essay, the lack of notability means it should be deleted. The fact that its author is a newbie is unfortunate but irrelevant. Ca2james (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Wikipedia is not written on paper there is no need to pick which works are the best or favorites in order to just give a representative sample of an authors work. As long as the work is well documented and discussed in reliable sources then it meets our notability guidelines. It is quite possible that an authors work will fall in and or favor over the years, or be rediscovered many years later. So, the correct way to determine notability is by the existence of reliable sources that give us enough material to write more than a one of two sentence summary. That is clearly the case here. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ca2james, the essay is from a collection called 'Anarchism and Other Essays' which is the first work listed under 4.1 Books written by Emma Goldman. Storeye (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Strong Delete This is by a new editor, who's done just this article. It is a strongly worded recapitulation (bordering on a rant), which isn't that much shorter than the original essay. It's the editor's soapbox. This, IMLTHO, needs to go. If the editor or some interested party would care to shorten the article to neutrally worded synopsis, then let it stay. The full essay can be linked at the bottom of the page. Tapered (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article in its present form today as I comment is an acceptable new article about an essay from a notable writer. Thanks to those who those who edited it to improve it. This article is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia is lacking and can't not be a complete reference until we add more articles like this one. As always, the the article should be edited to improve it instead of deleted if it is written in a way that does not make it meet the NPOV policy or is not encyclopedic in tone. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to The Traffic in Women. I've rewritten the content summary, and added a few examples of its influence. I hope I've addressed all the concerns mentioned above. Bosstopher (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly agree with analysis by FloNight, above. Thank you very much to Bosstopher for the improvement efforts. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to The Traffic in Women. Essay from notable author, and the page has been cleaned up significantly, making the nomination reason no longer valid. Comment: this article is not linked to in the article Emma Goldman, but it should. ~EdGl! 04:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Seems to be one of Goldman's more notable essays, judging by the newly added content and sources. The article has certainly been improved significantly since the deletion nomination. Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:GNG, a quick google search brings up numerous books and academic works which discuss and/or cite this essay. Article could be renamed or a couple of redirects created pointing to it.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Notable essay with ample discussion and analysis in peer-reviewed journals. Much thanks to those who improved the article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 09:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I think it has all been said above already. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per all of the above considering the improvements to the page since nomination. Looks to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gun violence in the United States by state[edit]

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

Original research. No Reliable sources. Links go to primary sources, not to secondary. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of reliable sources right now is not a problem, since those stats would likely be found on official websites. However, piecing together various statistics is doomed to be synthesis. It seems to imply, for instance, that gun ownership percentages or population density are relevant factors to explain crime rates - which they may or may not be, but we need a reference for that, otherwise I might just as well add a column "average summer temperature".

I would add this is a shame, because the list is well-formatted and categorized and all that. But still. Tigraan (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we delete an article consisting entirely of a table whose data factuality you're not contesting because it might imply something? (I find the synthesis argument and weather analogy frankly ridiculous; crime rate statistics are commonly presented in a per-year format without any great concern over whether or not there are more shootings on Saturday nights than Tuesday mornings.) Pax 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You understand me correctly. A list of recessions under Republican presidents in the United States would obviously be POV, even if the title and the content would be factual and easily sourced (adding the same list for Democrat presidents in a separate article does not make it NPOV, it just makes two POV articles; a list of recessions in the US could be NPOV, though).

As for the "weather" (temperature) argument, you possibly misunderstood me. Temperature bears little to no causation to gun violence, I am not disputing that (unlike the hour of the day, but as you pointed out we do not care). Nonetheless, it could be correlated (see kitchen sink regression), and adding it to the list is akin to making the claim that "numbers speak by themselves". This claim is not going to fool anyone in the case of temperature, but for population density?

I do think all factors listed here, including pop. density, are causally relevant, but I would very much like to see a source for that. Yes, I call WP:SYNTH on uniting two stats that no external source compares. This is by no way routine calculation which is meant for arithmetic operations (calculating the age of someone, computing the total sales for a firm from a breakdown by country, etc.). I think a sentence such as "At the federal level, sampling by state, gun murder rate is positively correlated with gun ownership with R squared 0.7 and slope 15/1000" would however fall into routine calculation, even if this involves some statistical background, provided someone put together murder rates and gun ownership before us (and it's a safe bet someone did).

As soon as you come up with a source that discusses the relationship between the variables that are listed here, I will be happy to change my !vote. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why sources should be sought to support "relationships" which are neither listed nor implied in the article in the first place. (That would lead to WP:Coatracked original research, edit wars and all those other horrible things we seek to avoid. --No; a nice list without embellishment is the way to go.) Pax 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If no relationship whatsoever is to be found even implicitly between the various columns of the list, why is it even here? That would be completely against WP:INDISCRIMINATE to have the stats of X vs. Y for every pair of X and Y no matter how relevant they are together (or, oppositely, to have one single huge table of every stat that could be found for every state). I am not suggesting "embellishment" of the list, I am suggesting sourcing of it. Tigraan (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you that readers may simply be interested in knowing how many shootings their state has per year per capita relative to others nearby? That's what the article does. It is not necessary to start addressing "implications" (after supposing them) which will immediately drag the article down an endless spiral of political edit-warring. Pax 06:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people want to know a lot of things, and we do not include them all (WP:USEFUL, and, again, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Hence why a source that shows some interest for those stats would be useful. I am not advocating to put text analysis, I am just advocating that a source be found that links the two statistics together; if it is so obvious that people are interested, surely it will be easy to find. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to wikiversity. WP:OR Antigng (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep this seems like a political move towards deletion: placing two sets of statistics that are common-sense relevant together, does not constitute Synthesis. There are plenty of secondary sources that would bring the two together (I shouldn't have to link to them). Sadads (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Piffle. What is "political" about sticking to Wikipedia standards? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should link to them - WP:BURDEN. Moreover, a big database of every stat about every US state would not be enough for that: what we need is some source that discusses the relation between said stats, or at least states that they are relevant together. I do not think WP:BLUE ought to apply here.

As for the WP:COI accusation, I live in a country where people who want firearms on sale are viewed as lunatics. I guess you would have accused me of the opposite bias. Tigraan (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There are so many similar lists of statistics by states which rely on primary sources, even single sources, that there is a de facto standard allowing them. See Lists of U.S. state topics and Template:USStateLists. I believe such lists are generally encyclopedic in nature (especially to the extent there are overlaps between encyclopedias and almanacs). That said, the current policies and guidelines, as written, appear to strongly discourage these list articles, and that's hard to ignore. Whether this individual list is desirable is a matter of opinion, and it'd be best if I didn't give mine. All things considered, I think the best solution would be to merge the table into the most relevant article, which is probably Gun violence in the United States. Rezin (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not merge. If we merged, the other article would get really long and then we'd have to split again. This article should simply be deleted because it is WP:Original research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat out wrong. Compiling data from government sources into a table does not fall under the WP definitions of original research. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations: "Routine calculations do not count as original research...". Pax 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could have quoted WP:CALC in its entirety, which includes "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." That list of example makes it fairly clear that "routine calculation" is about doing math, and putting together two pieces of information that the sources do not unite is not doing math.

This being said, "do not merge because the main article is too lengthy" is a very weak argument. Tigraan (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating a rate is about as simple as math gets for anyone beyond elementary school, particularly for yearly statistics. And let me quote yourself right back at you: "You could have quoted WP:CALC in its entirety, which includes..." (here comes the part you skipped over) "....provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources..."

-So far, nobody in this AfD has argued that the numbers are wrong; and I think that rather telling. Pax 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is not that dividing one number by another is complex math (I think even fairly complex operations can qualify as WP:CALC, if their complexity is purely a matter of mathematical technique, see above). The problem is with the decision of which statistics to calculate or to use. Tigraan (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . The list is very relevant. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to decide whether it is relevant, but to the sources (WP:ILIKEIT). Tigraan (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reasonable fork of the now very lengthy Gun violence in the United States. Title is a clunker, IMO, but it's derivative and easily-solved with a move. Pax 07:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The gun control debate is perpetual, and people are always looking for reliable statistics. The FBI reports homicide rates by state, and raw numbers of homicides by weapon by state, but they do not publish homicide rates by weapon by state, even though it would be trivial to do so. But I see no reason why the bar against original research would mean wikip could not perform this simple division. I would source all the data from the FBI report, however, to prevent inconsistent results. 50.0.36.95 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was ready to hate this as an original essay but this is a reasonable and non-tendentious presentation of sourced data. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't original research or synthesis, it's simply a combination of statistics from three reliable published sources. Synthesis requires that a conclusion be drawn or implied from two or more separate sources, but that's not happening in this article. In other words, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". It's also not required that you use secondary sources, WP:Scholarship actually says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." (emphasis mine). The article is informative and accurate; it gave me the info I needed quickly and easily. Therefore I see no good reason not to keep it. -- Hi Ev 00:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is the center of the debate. I do think putting together an array is more than simple juxtaposition, and that it implies that gun ownership percentages are causally relevant to gun homicide rates (which they are, most likely, but a source (even primary) would be good). Tigraan (talk) 13:28, 24 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 // 02:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The reason given for deletion is it "seems" that a juxtaposition of elements might imply something lead to a conclusion. This is no reason at all and very strongly seems to be a contention from the Gun Lobby of the sort that determines the acts of congressmen (no public health studies of gun murders) but should not influence Wikipedia. FrankBlank (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no "public health studies of gun murders", it is not to Wikipedia to come up with its own study, that is precisely what the original research policies are all about. I stand by my affirmation that such a list constitutes synthesis (unless a source is given). Tigraan (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's the key from the "Synth pages:" not mere juxtaposition. Just bringing factoids together which might imply connection or conclusions is not synth. Simple arithmetical operations are not original research. This is not welcome news for paranoid ideologues. Tapered (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Addendum Raw numbers are often taken from primary sources, such as government data. There's no virtue in or need in taking data fr/ the NYTimes instead of the USCensus. The primary sources rationale for deletion doesn't fly. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article unless you are replacing it with more comprehensive and complete and up to date data. Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.65.82 (talk) 16:05, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BriBry[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep signed with polar reliable source teneighty Jonpatterns (talk) 22:32, 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, Nakon 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] - Not perfect but it's better than fuck all. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Signing with a publishing company does not make the subject notable. The coverage is not sufficient either to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proper notability it seems. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to be picky but notability has been proven. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sangeeta N Kale[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMICS: very few reliable sources cover this person and it's very unlikely that the subject meets any WP:NACADEMICS criteria, given the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources and I can not find any evidence that this subject meets any of the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. Esquivalience ^t 23:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator: the subject does not meet criteria 1 of WP:NACADEMICS because there is no evidence by independent, reliable sources that this subject has made substantial contributions to her discipline. The only independent source that I can find (here) covering her only states that she only commented on the innovation covered by the source. Due to the lack of reliable sources covering the subject, the other criteria are unlikely to be met by the subject. Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; only one !vote is allowed. Feel free to comment all you'd like, though. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An h-index of 3 is not nearly enough for WP:PROF, and I'm not seeing other WP:PROF criteria satisfied either. -- 120.17.65.148 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC#6 and WP:GNG. As Vice-Chancellor (Note: the full Chancellor position is honorary) of the Defence Institute of Advanced Technology [44], [45]. "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university)...." Other coverage: [46] and [47]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although link 4 is about enough to be non-trivial, link 3 is only a very minor passing mention. Also, I don't think that DIAT is a significant educational institution. Esquivalience ^t 23:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DIAT web site, the Vice-Chancellor is Dr. Surendra Pal. Prior to him it was Dr. Prahlada. Sangeeta N Kale does not appear ever to have been the VC at DIAT. This seems to be an error by the Pune Mirror. The Internet Wayback machine confirms that in 2014, when those Pune Mirror articles were written, Dr. Prahlada was the VC. In fact, Dr. Kale is the Dean (Academics) at DIAT, a less senior post. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 00:11, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are hundreds of thousands of colleges in India and every college has a dean. Thousands of scientists are working on nano-technology. How does it make someone a notable figure. Missing notability. Educationtemple (talk) 18:29, 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 // 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I'd like to support more articles on women in STEM, especially in non-1st-world countries, but I just don't see the evidence of passing WP:PROF in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 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 redirect to Taco Shop Poets. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrián Arancibia[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources, possibly could be merged with Taco Shop Poets.Jonpatterns (talk) 22:25, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taco Shop Poets, where he is already mentioned. I could find no evidence that he is individually notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taco Shop Poets per MelanieN. The local news coverage of his school board run does not rise to the level of independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Hwa-young[edit]

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

I don't think her acting career is significant enough yet for an article. WP:ENT says actors are likely to be notable if they have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Hwayoung only started acting last year, and it looks like she's had two supporting roles (in a short TV drama and a film) and one lead role in a sitcom. I think it's possibly WP:TOOSOON for her own article. T-ara#Members could be expanded (like Apink) to accommodate some of the information here. Random86 (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not know why she is not notable. she debuted solo as actress. she acted in Love Forecast as supporting role and also acted in several tv series as main character. Kanghuitari (talk) 06:24, 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 // 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She left T-ara after claiming she was bullied by other members of the group. It was a major news event in the world of K-pop. See here and here. The initializer (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BAND, she can't be notable just because of the bullying controversy. Any notability she got from the controversy is not "individual notability for activity independent of the band". If she is notable enough for her own article, it is because of her acting career. Kanghuitari, the article currently contains no prose about her acting career. There are just three roles listed in a table. You say she "acted in several tv series as main character", but there is nothing in the article to show that. Random86 (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has had multiple dramas and a film Asdklf; (talk) 16:12, 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. UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Tarm[edit]

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

Fails to meet our notability requirements. Was PRODed; PROD was removed by article creator, who failed to AGF, writing as his rationale "Assuming article deletion proposal not done in good faith." Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Just on its own, probably too early for the article, notability-wise. But if we'd include the recent "mini-scandal" about his work which included passages from Soviet and Nazi melodies - see NYT, for example - then he might be noteworthy. However, it might fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, so I remain undecided. --Sander Säde 12:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would fall under ONEEVENT. Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, notability is questionable. AlbinoFerret 03:19, 28 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) 07:45, 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 // 02:06, 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. Michig (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chit Tun[edit]

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

Complete and total puffery. No coverage whatsoever in any secondary sources, so far as I can see. schetm (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment-Almost seems like they just linked random people with the same name also on the links. Wgolf (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, most of the article dealing with accomplishments not sourced, only personal life, and at least some of those if not all those appear to be other people. AlbinoFerret 03:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability and no reliable sources at all. Huon (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how Wikipedia functions in regards to the editing process, however I do want to address the current page for deletion, Joshua Chit Tun. I did not create the article, I do agree there are too many links referenced to stubs etc., without second sources. However I assure you if one was diligent to do the research it is not hard to verify at all. In the end this is trivial and not my concern, I am confident in a few months there will be valid sources to meet your standards from a variety of news group. It is just prior to this I preferred to keep what I was working towards a private matter, nevertheless I am one to document all aspects of my life. Every page and every image for every year.

Wikipedia is not my thing. This was just to acknowledged your comments, as you are all the experts on Wikipedia, however I will continue to do and your comments are well noted, my team will make sure that the news covers my experiences.

To conclude, I would appreciate it since you know how to navigate Wikipedia to work with the individual who created the article to improve it so in that regards it meets all standards.

Thank you.

- Joshua Chit Tun — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC2016 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Yeates[edit]

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

Okay, not sure about notability here. I looked her up and yes she has a few shows but it does not seem like a lot. Too soon? She does have a following it says, but not sure how much. Wgolf (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC) withdraw[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not much out there but I did come across this here, she's playing opposite Susannah York, so Yeates is a real actress, getting good roles. Plus in-depth commentary here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:36, 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 // 02:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New article that does need serious expanding and sourcing. A quick Google search brings up enough to expand it. AlbinoFerret 03:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - The article is piss poor but Google News brings up a few news articles on her so should do for now. –Davey2010^Talk 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw-Okay so looks like she can keep her article per what others have said. Wgolf (talk) 16:07, 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 (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 [48] — 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 delete. With the consensus reached in the previous AFD in mind, and with the absence of sources provided during this discussion - covering the article's subject directly and in detail, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jace Norman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article lacks any references to establish notability, and searching for material about subject shows a lack of significant coverage in multiple published, independent, reliable secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. Actor has only one lead role to date, and WP:NACTOR requires multiple significant roles. Only difference I'm seeing from July 2014 AfD is role in February 2015 Nickelodeon film Splitting Adam (among other Nickelodeon stars) [49], but does not constitute any more of a significant role compared to Henry Danger. Still may be a little too early for article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Still doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria. Nakon 01:42, 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep He is a lead actor on a television series that has 18 episodes and has been renewed for a second season – that second season is key here for significance, I'd say that is equivalent to a second series. There is not a lot of non-trivial coverage, mostly fanish sites but still show some notability. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:53, 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 // 01:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the level of coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Martirosyan[edit]

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

Not notable. One book, interviews, and lectures do not meet the general or academic notability guidelines: see WP:SCHOLAR. Macrakis (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martirosyan is perhaps the most valuable living Armenian linguist in the world. Yes, so far he has authored one book, but that doesn't mean he's not notable. A simple Google Books search yields 237 results for "Hrach Martirosyan"[50], meaning he has been cited by many other scholars. And Google Scholars shows that his 2008 book has been cited 29 times.[51] --Երևանցի ^talk 02:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
(changed)Delete He was a Manoogian Simone Foundation Post-doctoral Fellow from 2009 to 2010 (A notable visiting scholar fellowship) and therefore an influential member of the Armenian Studies Program of the University of Michigan, which is quite remarkable taking into account these programs have a select procedure at picking its participants. See here for his credentials and here for the actual Fellowship and Chair information. --92slim (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I claim no expertise in Armenian studies. But if we were to include every scholar with a published book and a prestigious post-doc, we'd be including many times more people than specified in WP:SCHOLAR. Perhaps a review of his book says something like "the leading scholar of..." or some such. We just need some evidence of his notability. By the way, the book search above returns many books which do not refer to him, but to other people named Hrach or Martirosyan; anyway, he only gets about half as many hits on Google Books and on Google Scholar as I do. --Macrakis (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found the one - Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. From the article: "The Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (commonly abbreviated IEED) is a research project of the Department of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics at Leiden University, initiated in 1991 by Peter Schrijver and others." I think that a project of such a long duration, linguistic importance and caliber, that includes quite a few authors of diverse languages participating in it should prove the claims of his particular notability as a scholar by his inclusion. If we keep it I will contribute to both articles, as they seem fairly interesting to be honest. --92slim (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it shows that he is a serious scholar. But the criteria at WP:SCHOLAR are much more stringent than that. --Macrakis (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the criterias again, and based on Criterion 1, there is still a possibility of saving the article probably. He participated in these:

Featured in the Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, Volume 19, Number 2, December 2010
The IXth International Conference on Armenian Linguistics. Institute for Linguistic Studies. Russian Academy of Sciences - An international conference hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences, held on November 2012, which probably confirms the following line "invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline" found in the first criteria.
On its 40th anniversary, the Society for Armenian Studies (SAS) organized an unprecedented workshop from Oct. 3-5 at the presidential hall of sessions of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia, with 42 scholars from Armenia and abroad who delivered papers in English or Armenian. (he could be a member of the SAS, I am not sure of that)
“From the toponym to history”, dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Stepan Bakhshyan. Faculty of History, Yerevan State University - a conference of much lesser importance but possibly confirming the part of the criteria 1 that states "special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person".
TT 2012 - Jos Weitenberg Memorial Workshop on the History of Armenian. Dr Hratch Martirosyan (Leiden University) (Jointly convened with Dr Ilya Yakubovich, University of Oxford) - A Jos Weitenberg Memorial Workshop
Cotsen Institute International Conference at UCLA

Let me know your input --92slim (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "in honor of" conferences might be evidence for the notability of Stepan Bakhshyan and Jos Weitenberg, et al., but not for Martirosyan. Being on the program committee of an international conference doesn't count for much. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an archive of scholars' CVs or a source of bibliographic data. --Macrakis (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we should delete Rick Derksen as well, for example. And maybe Diakonoff. Because neither meet the criteria either if so. Having just one book isn't enough of a reason to delete him in my opinion, because his book has a elevated price in the market, and there must be a reason - which I attribute to his notability. If he was just another author (he is an etymologist, sorry didn't clarify before), he wouldn't sell it for 250 dollars a piece. In any case, I wouldn't necessarily be against the deletion of the article, because it is not going to affect the importance of his work. There are also plenty of pseudo-scholars on Wikipedia we could delete, so I understand your point nevertheless.

Just to clarify, the description of his book is key to my decision: "There are many valuable systematic handbooks, studies and surveys on comparative Armenian linguistics. Almost all of these works, with a few exceptions, mostly concentrate on Classical Armenian and touch the dialects only sporadically...This book provides an up-to-date...lexical, phonetic, and morphological material in the Armenian dialects into the etymological treatment of the Indo-European lexicon. In this respect it is completely new." Classical Armenian is not spoken, thus rendering his only book invaluable in my humble opinion. If we were talking about a language that has been analyzed well, then I wouldn't bother to defend the article. --92slim (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Derksen should probably be deleted. But Diakonoff has plenty of evidence of notability, including three volumes in his honor, an article about him (not by him) in the Encyclopedia Iranica, an honorary degree from the University of Chicago, etc. etc. --Macrakis (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re the price, (a) this is hardly an encyclopedic criterion; (b) Brill charges a lot in general; (c) highly specialized academic books have a very limited audience, so unit cost will be high. --Macrakis (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly true. I will use this page as a reference for future edits, as I understand the scholar requirements now - a bit tricky I may say. Let's get rid of the article. --92slim (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If kept it would be nice if someone transliterated all the Armenian-alphabet sources into the Latin alphabet. Virtually the whole page is blank for me. Carrite (talk) 20:54, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 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 rewrite. The article's subject is found to be outdated and in need of a rewrite, however the article's subject is found to still be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zooomr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This website lacks notability. The article contains only 1 reference to a 3rd party news source (the others being it's own blog). It's Alexa rank it near 500,000. As of March 2015, the site zooomr.com no longer advertises the web-based photo sharing service described in this article (it's now a photo-sharing iPhone app that also lacks notability) which suggests that the site as described here is defunct.

Delete Analogstats (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I never heard of it, but apparently it was pretty popular for a while: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. There are other hits, too, but I think that's representative. I guess it does seem pretty dead now, but notability is not temporary. If the site was shut down, we can simply report this, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, defuct page. Should be updated to reflect what it is. IEdior (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I'll tacitly change my vote to rewrite and then I think we have a weak rewrite consensus if we interpret User:NinjaRobotPirate's vote as rewrite. I'll do the rewrite if the powers that be deem this the final vote. Analogstats (talk) 19:23, 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 procedural close. Nominator has bundled this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Women's Championship[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:22, 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 procedural close. Nominator has bundled this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Unified Championship[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:21, 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 procedural close. Nominator has bundled this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:19, 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. UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd[edit]

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

This topic is not notable and the references do not support the information contained in the article. Bfpage |leave a message 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be cited, but there;'s no evidence its a leading case. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited 2 sources to support this case, both leading NZ university law text books, and whilst an editor has said these books do not support this case, I doubt a Philosophy graduate in the US has even access to these books in the first place. Furthermore, this editor has removed part of the article on the basis that legal notices are not allowed, when clearly such notices are required in legal articles. For the record, law case always have their quirks, and this case is frequently compared to Conlon v Ozolin. As stated this case is listed in 2 law text books, and I have not been aware that these cases have been since removed from these books. Do you guys really have nothing better to do than try to deleted article that has 2 widely noted references in support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs)

Keep as this case meets notability for events in that it created a legal precedent in New Zealand relating to contract law therefore it has a lasting effect. The case is also cited reasonably often in legal textbooks dealing with such law giving it duration. NealeFamily (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point to note for previous editor comment:

I doubt a Philosophy graduate in the US has even access to these books in the first place. Furthermore, this editor has removed part of the article on the basis that legal notices are not allowed, when clearly such notices are required in legal articles.

This is a personal attack on the editor. (1) Do not attack the person - use Wiki Guidelines to prove your case and (2) any editor may change Wiki (within the guidelines), whether or not we necessarily agree with that change. NealeFamily (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the removal of the text of the letter from the article was based on plainly erroneous reasoning. The letter wasn't being quoted in the article to 'make a legal announcement'. It was being quoted as part of the material facts of the case, the gist of which is presented in the article as 'if, in a similar future case, someone sends a letter like that one, or a similar letter, under those circumstances, or under similar circumstances, will it render him personally liable?'. (The case was concerned with the effect of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977). James500 (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This satisfies GNG due to sources in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere. This satisfies criteria 2 of WP:CASES, as a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. EVENT is irrelevant as an exclusionary criteria. A judicial precedent is not an event, it is a law. Moreover the actual judgement with which we are concerned is not an event, it is a document. A more likely guideline would be TBK, which just tells us to use common sense. Every time one of Kiwisheriff's court case articles gets nominated, it is always kept. Consensus should be clear by now. This nomination has WP:SNOW chance of success. James500 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wiki entries are always open to challenge regardless of an editors past perfomance, but I support the keep as I think it crosses threshhold on a number of grounds anyway. NealeFamily (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per NealeFamily. Paora (talk) 08:40, 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 // 01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not entirely sure why this got relisted again, but the case appears to meet notability requirements. Schwede 66 08:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:Afd bottom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lot of random threads here, but unless I'm misreading something, this boils down to a unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exo filmography[edit]

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

Aside from being 100% unsourced, this article, supposedly a filmography for the group Exo, is a list of TV/film roles by individuals within the group plus a list of variety show and radio appearances. The former should be handled in the individuals' articles/sections and the latter has been already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia. So the article serves no remaining purpose. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I split this article from Exo videography before I realized a filmography is often included on a musician's videography page. Exo's cameo appearance in To the Beautiful You, and their own web drama and variety shows (EXO Next Door, EXO's Showtime, XOXO EXO, and 90:2014) can either be listed on Exo's main article or their videography. Anything about individual members should be in their own articles/subsections. Random86 (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Exo (band) per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the band's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. No need t merge what can be added later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe when Shinyang-i said "the latter has been already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia" they were refering to the "list of variety show and radio appearances". Peachywink (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He said having separate filmographies "has been already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia". Per policy and guideline that sweeping condemnation is not true, unless he wishes to modify his statement to be what your infer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, once again, I most certainly did not say that, and I did not make a "sweeping condemnation" of anything. I don't even see how you could get that. I said "the latter has already been established...". "The latter" refers to the latter thing mentioned, "a list of variety show and radio appearances." It seems clear to everyone but you. Please, read carefully, and don't derail or ruin AFD discussions by making false allegations. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be mad Schmidt, , but I felt this might be needed. English lesson of the day: when a person says "the latter" it means you have to go look at there previous statement and find a point where it has listed two seperate things. This could be objects like "apples and oranges" or ideas like "love or lust" but they are always separated by some form of connecting conjunction. In this case it would be this part of Shinyang-i's sentence "a list of TV/film roles by individuals within the group plus a list of variety show and radio appearances". Now a person might think the "and" is the break point for the two ideas being presented here but it is actually the word "plus" that breaks them apart since plus can be though of as another way to say "and in addition". So when a person says "the latter they are refering to the second part of the statement and in this case that would be "a list of variety show and radio appearances". You misread, this is not a debate, it is a fact. I hope that helped to clarify. :) Peachywink (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clarification: Guideline lesson of the day: read MOS:LISTS, WP:LISTPURP and WP:SALAT. Even if something is thought trivial and unimportant or non-notable by someone, a list of a group's "variety show and radio appearances" are not summarily disallowed. Lacking sources for an individual list article, they can still be mentioned in other articles as the appearance sources itself. And the title of the list up for deletion is properly Exo filmography, not Exo variety show and radio appearances. And I'm not mad at all. Out. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He/she was trying to help you understand what "latter" meant. Point missed yet again. Anyway, you are not really contributing anything to this AFD discussion and you've really upset me with your untrue claims about me. So if it's not too much trouble just go away, please. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant group material can be added to the main article or Exo videography(...but that page has some issues such as it not being linked in the main article and also has no references.) Anyways, as for this page, it has no good reason to exist, it offers no prose or context to show how any of it is relevant to the group, and is just a list of shows. Peachywink (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can, a place where it has context... but I've already struck my saying just that. And adding "the latter (variety show and radio appearances)" is not disallowed... specially if those appearances brought the group coverage and greater notability. WP:ENT Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a place where context is important. This is kpop. Nearly every kpop artist goes on hundreds of variety shows. There have been repeated and extensive discussions among people who edit kpop articles about whether or not humongous lists of every variety show an artist was ever on belongs on Wikipedia. The consensus has repeatedly been NO. Such lists are meaningless and unencyclopedic because they do neither of the things you suggest; they are just huge lists. This is not the case in every situation in the world but in kpop it nearly always is. There have been discussions about when it is appropriate to list or discuss an artist's variety show appearances but gigantic lists like the ones on these filmographies? No. Many very experienced editors, including admins, have been party to these discussions. So yes, it has been established that in kpop (which is what these all are) lists of every variety show appearance by an artist is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for bringing up that point, but in this case it's not relevant. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:53, 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 procedural close. Nominator has bundled this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Wrestling Federation (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northern Wrestling Federation employees[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:14, 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 all. Michig (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Wrestling Federation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the Northern Wrestling Federation page:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and nothing to show notability is presented in the form of sources or my own searches. MPJ -US 11:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - never achieved notability even after 17 years. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The promotion fails GNG, championships from a non-notable promotion aren't notable.LM2000 (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails GNG. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:26, 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 Redirect. UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rùnqīyuè[edit]

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

Nominating Rùnqīyuè (閏七月, intercalary 7th month) and Rùnshíyuè (閏十月, intercalary 10th month) for deletion for being otherwise empty outside the lede, and that Chinese calendar intercalary months are not fixed and so it can happen at (most) any month according to the algorithm. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Proper formatting at 02:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any month can be a leap month according to Chinese calender. I see no point in having serveral duplicated articles.Antigng (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)--Antigng (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Chinese calendar: There is little potential for them to be developed as full-fledged articles. Just as the nom and Antigng had said, any month can be a leap month in the Chinese calendar, with some months more frequent than others. Festivals are reckoned by the regular months, and modern scholars use the Gregorian calendar to date historical events. The same user mass created articles for each month (regular and leap) of the Chinese calendar, which contain little or no content and references. Some of the articles had been redirected to the Chinese calendar article.--Joshua ^{Talk to me} _{What I've done?} 07:44, 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AOA filmography[edit]

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

Another filmography which is actually a list of TV drama appearances by individuals within the group, plus a list of variety show appearances. It's been established the latter isn't appropriate for Wikipedia so I don't think this article really has a purpose. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (see also my comments on WP:Articles for deletion/EXID filmography). The only thing I would possibly keep is the table under "Reality series", which can be merged to AOA (band)#Filmography. The music videos are already listed on AOA discography. Random86 (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very few kpop groups really need filmographies the information can be kept on their main page. For the few that do need it I lean towards useing videographies and moving music videos on there as well. The point however is that I see no reason to even keep the frame of this page up, so delete away.Peachywink (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable sources have been presented during this discussion, covering the article's subject directly and in detail, the article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulab Singh (Story)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced story written by non-notable author. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator perhaps made a mistake in mentioning author's name. Author is very well known; Subhadra Kumari Chauhan. Possibly this article might pass but with apt references and clean-up. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep if story was written by Subhadra Kumari Chauhan it may meet WP:NBOOK or it could be merged into author article? problem is that nearly all web pages i have found on subhadra talks of her poetry, only 1 mentioned she had written some kids books but didn't list their titles or describe them in any way.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe an article about the book that included a brief plot summary would work, but this is much too in-depth, unsourced, and fictional for Wikipedia. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:34, 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 // 01:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4Minute filmography[edit]

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

This is supposed to be a 4minute filmography, but is actually 1) a list of solo TV/movie appearances by 4minute members (all of whom have their own articles) and 2) a list of variety show appearances by members or the full group. It's already been established the latter is not appropriate for Wikipedia, so this article really serves no purpose. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (see also my comments on WP:Articles for deletion/EXID filmography). The only thing I would keep is the table under "Shows and Documentaries", which can be merged to 4Minute. Random86 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge back to 4Minute article per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. My suggestion that the information be merged is meeting with too much confusion. Any editor who wishes can expand and add it to the article whenever they wish it. No need to state the obvious. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify your comment to remove your claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed on Wikipedia, since I clearly did not say that (as two other editors have already pointed out to you on other AFD discussions). Also, please be more clear as to what material you think should be merged into 4minute because it's out of the question to merge all of it - be specific and clear to this article. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... no. In speaking about filmographies your nomination did in fact claim "It's already been established the latter is not appropriate for Wikipedia", when in fact separate filmography lists MAY and DO exist. No matter, I'm striking my "merge". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dude, that's what I said. I said lists of variety show and radio show appearances ("the latter") are not appropriate for Wikipedia. That is exactly what I said, and I was correct. How you can continually claim that I said filmographies are not allowed is mind-boggling. Anyway, cheers. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the documentaries and some of the shows would be good to keep in the main article they need to find refernces first since the ones on the page might as well not be there. Wordpress, blog sites, and fan forums but not one credible source.Peachywink (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denice D. Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted before as nopn-notable: I see no evidence that this person has become notable since then. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep - Denice Lewis has sufficient coverage as a historically high profile model. Being on multiple covers of MAJOR magazines in the 80s/early 90s is notable in itself. Although most of the sourcing currently online is from tabloids such as the Daily Mail and the Mirror, I see two major "look how far the mighty fell" articles from 1998 and 1999 "How the Eighties IT Girl Became a Lonely WAS Girl" and "How the Model Who Shared Her Men with Diana and Fergie Went from the Cover of Tatler to Be Plain Prisoner No.5970649 in This LA Jail." Although those are not reliable sources, it's worth noting that they both play up how major and successful she was in the 80s, ten years afterwards. She also has notoriety due to her role as a "famous ex-girlfriend" of men who went on to be linked to Princess Diana and the Duchess of York, which has led to some slight coverage in relevant biographies such as ([59], [60], [61]). The article itself really needs cutting down and reducing to the barest essentials, but I think Denice Lewis is worth a good, straightforward article which simply states the bare facts about her modelling career, the covers/films/videos she did, and a few acknowledgements of her high-profile connections. There is certainly evidence of ongoing coverage/media interest over the years about this specific woman, in a rather depressing way, but sufficient for a basic article which states why she once mattered, than the hot mess it currently is. Mabalu (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done a quick tidy up and Wikification on my sandbox. Although the sourcing is a bit grotty, I feel that this is a far more encyclopaedic and straightforward article than the current one. Lewis certainly had a very high profile in the trashy press in the 1980s and early '90s - gossip magazines, tabloids, etc, but this was as much because she was a high profile model, as because of who she was dating. When people take a look at fashion modelling during the 1980s, I would expect to see Denice Lewis namechecked and given significant text space. Mabalu (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mabalu. Pax 06:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Malabu. WordSeventeen (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Sidana[edit]

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

Contested prod-singer who falls under too soon who has done very little so far and no reliable sources from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please explain about "reliable sources"? As there is a news in Google News about latest single track. Also if possible don't delete this article as this article will be filled with more information/data in couple of week's, because this singer is releasing more music.PreetSingh2s (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and other suitable SNGs, the "news in Google News" is only a press release hosted in pr.com ([62]), thus failing to be secondary/ independent coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. Cavarrone 06:20, 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 // 00:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to meet notability guidelines for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 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 keep. I'm closing as keep due to consensus and the policy advanced arguments advanced, but this article really needs to be expanded. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopswood school[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ----Drm310 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's actually tripartite, nursery, primary (= infant and junior) and secondary (= high) http://www.bishopswoodschool.co.uk/ The www.bishopswood-inf.hants.sch.uk one is 'elementary' (infant and junior), but is not a special needs school, which the one referred to in the article is. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it has notability, the current article doesn't establish it. Unless someone plans on making some serious improvements, it probably should be deleted. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I blocked them for user name before they got very far. They haven't had time to regroup and request a change or start a new account yet. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as The Making of the Inclusive School and Policies for Diversity in Education. It is our editing policy to nuture such weak starts, not to delete them. Andrew D. (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I can't see the first link, I'm satisfied with the second that this school passes the school SNG as a model school, even if it does not include secondary-age students. If it does include the latter, it is a slam-dunk. Carrite (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the first link now, and it does indicate that this school included secondary school students. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is piss-poor and even that is an understatement but...... I come bearing gifts [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] - They're not perfect but meh it's better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwood College[edit]

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

I was bearing in mind WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but I couldn't even find out enough to identify if this was a high school or not. I couldn't identify a good redirect target either. I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I guess. There's enough proof the school existed,[73][74][75][76] but the existing reference implies it was a "small private" school. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being "small" or "private" is not the question — nor is being defunct. Being a high school (or higher) of confirmed existence is the important thing. This clearly did exist. Now, was it a high school? Almost unquestionably. Forgive the paywalled links but THIS from the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer Wednesday 14 December 1938 indicates that the school had an orchestra and a dramatic society. And THIS from the same publication of Monday 15 September 1952 indicates that students of the school passed the "Cambridge General Certificate" and "Northern Universities General Certificate." Ergo, keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that high schools (and by extension colleges) of verifiable existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved the article with more information about the "college". It seems to have been the equivalent of a K-12 private school. It had lower, middle, and upper schools; the upper school prepared students for the General Certificate of Education, which is comparable to a high school diploma. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES this defunct school would have been notable, and thus still is. --MelanieN (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is significant here, but it is not a guideline, but an essay on how AfDs tend to go (correct me if I'm wrong). WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is clear that any high school still needs to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Hopefully the new sources can go at least some way to demonstrating that though. Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per new sources. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does mention WP:ORG, but in the end says that high schools are kept if there are more than zero independent sources. There seems to be an intent to treat high schools as inherently notable, so for consistency I guess this is a keep. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Summers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failes both PORNBIO & GNG. As a blp this should therefore be deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as can't find any evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG without non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Even if you count Adult Video News as reliable, coverage is limited to passing mentions. Only plausible claim for PORNBIO would be starring in The Brat film series (criterion #2). That would need acknowledgement by reliable sources. All I could find is a mention in XBIZ. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines for ponographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same rationale as in last discussion. "She was one of the main subjects in a book about 80-90s porn.[1][2]. I remember Jamie Loves Jeff was considered a groundbreaking movie/blockbuster (criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO) at the time since that was Jeff Stryker's crossover movie.[3][4][5]" There were reliable sources supporting this but not added to the article, some of them have been linkrotted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Notability and "groundbreaking" have to be proven, not cited to one's memory of flipping through a review in a porn magazine 20 years ago. So we're left with the usual non-notable porn industry links, non-notable films, and so on. WP:GNG failure. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 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 speedy keep. per SK1 & all that fun stuff (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon Queen[edit]

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

~~Novel with no refs that has been tagged for notability since 2008 Wgolf (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)~~withdrawn[reply]

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

Keep per WP:NBOOK. It's been reviewed by Publishers Weekly[77] and apparently School Library Journal, at least according to Amazon.com. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw-Okay does look notable enough then! Wgolf (talk) 20:29, 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.