Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 March	26 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Brown (actor)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Does not mention a single acting role. IMDB page only lists youtube videos. Not notable as a musician either HoarseHorsie (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-also comes across as a promo page. Wgolf (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no doubt other databases will have Gabriel Brown (IMDB, etc) but as far as warranting an Encyclopedic entry? I think it misses the mark for notability. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is afferently not written in a encyclopedic way. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — References are unspecific (e.g. Gabriel Brown on Youtube should surely be an external link) RatRat (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
Delete unless sources to establish notability emerge. Being primarily a YouTube personality isn't an automatic disqualifier, but we need reliable sources that cover Brown in depth to establish notability. The article doesn't currently have any and a quick search didn't turn up anything obvious (although due to the common nature of his name I could have easily missed something). Pinging @SecretName101: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo, no notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 2 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. Valley2city^‽ 02:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Storaged Melodies (System of a Down Album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, claims to be a "fan-made bootleg" Le Deluge (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think fanmade content is notable enough to warrant getting its own page when it wasn't even notable enough to be mentioned in the band's own article. Cool content and no doubt a fan site could have info on it, but not Encyclopedic worthy. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG, probably unlikely to have much in the way of third party reliable coverage given its status of an unofficial fan compilation... Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found to suggest this bootleg might pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 00:42, 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 Closing discussion. Article was G5 speedied. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meera (actress) filmography[edit]

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

Consistent blanking of this page, anyway unneeded filmography is going on here. Wgolf (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge actor Bill Murray has a larger filmography and article and we still manage to have both in the same article. I don't have a problem with a filmography, but giving it its own article is excessive. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Shohat[edit]

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

Article created on a person who was elected to the Knesset in Israel's recent elections. However, they have opted not to take up their seat, so will not have been a Knesset member. Thus they fail WP:POLITICIAN (and being a mayor of Safed, a small town in the north of Israel) is not really sufficient to confer notability. Prod removed by an IP without explanation. Number 5 7 21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article, and I'm fine with it being deleted due to the reasons you mentioned above. Stainedglasscurtain (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But he does meet GNG. See, for example, articles here and here and here and here and here and here. Nor is the coverage for one event. Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see that there are some 3rd party references but not anymore than you would see for any other mayor. He is young and might be notable in the future, but at the moment I don't see notability to warrant a wikipedia entry, not every Mayor is notable just like not every CEO of a small company is notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3rd party references you see are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Which is precisely what wp:GNG says makes a subject notable for wikipedia purposes. Epeefleche (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't need to meet WP:POLITICIAN, when it plainly meets GNG. Plenty of coverage about him on account of his decision to give up his Knesset seat, and previous non-Knesset activity. What's the point to delete a non-promotional, well soruced article about a man with plenty of media coverage, just because he's not quite as prominent as some users would like? Spare a few kilobytes for the poor mayor of Safed; his article meets our standards. -- Y not? 14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- From the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS department, I would refer everyone to much less exciting Israeli mayor articles, such as Aviram Dahari, Khaled Aghbariyya, Meir Yitzhak Halevi, Yossi Brodny. Let's delete those instead. -- Y not? 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's accurate -- it doesn't need to meet wp:politician. I'm actually surprised that the nomination fails to mention GNG at all, and solely focuses on wp:politician. If one searches in Hebrew, one finds even additional substantial RS coverage; it is certainly ample to meet GNG. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG, significant coverage in major newspapers, as User:Epeefleche points out above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting both GNG and the POLITICIAN high bar, having been elected to the Knesset, even if he did resign the seat. Carrite (talk) 12:45, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live from Patrick Street[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Should be redirected to Patrick Street/ Karlhard (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karlhard:So, if I understand your reason for imposing an AfD on this article [about an album], you are proposing that it should be re-directed to the existing article on Patrick Street, which is an aticle about the band.

Please would you explain to me how this makes any sense:

the subject article Live from Patrick Street is about a live album, recorded by the band Patrick Street;
the article on Patrick Street is about the band who recorded this live album.

Why should a new article about an album be re-directed to the article about the band, when the album is already listed in the discography section of the band's article.

Thank you for your prompt response, and for considering the removal of this article from AfD.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album meets criterion number 1 of WP:MUSIC as it has received multiple independent reviews, including Acoustic Guitar magazine (link is to magazine index only), Living Tradition magazine and The Irish Echo. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient independent sources available to prove the notability of the album and album seems to be popular among the locals. more citations should be added to solidify its claim of notability. Nicky mathew (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage to both establish notability and also to allow a meaningful article to exist. --Michig (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have now added six sources in the External links section, showing evidence that this album was reviewed in issue No. 191 of Folk Roots (fRoots), in addition to the reviews from the Living Tradition, Acoustic Guitar and The Irish Echo that RichardOSmith kindly provided in the first entry above. I have also added the 'Album ratings' template (under the infobox), suitably updated with the scores available from the 'Allmusic' and 'Discogs' websites. I have also added links to online articles and reviews that associate this album with the notoriety of the band.
Retaining this article would enable our encyclopedia to offer a complete series of articles for the entire discography released by these notable musicians, who are deemed "legends of Irish traditional music". Thank you to everyone who supported this article, along with my efforts to make our encyclopedia more complete. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk) 23:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep-same reasons as others have said. Wgolf (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Improved to the point that Speedy keep may be in order. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - the article is clearly notable. Karlhard (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please would someone therefore remove the AfD templates from the article itself? Very many thanks once again to everyone who helped so supportively. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk) 15:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph and Melissa Batten[edit]

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

Non-notable domestic violence (murder-suicide) case involving non-notable persons. No significant coverage beyond local news, no legal precedents. Fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. I also find it bizarre that the murderer and his victim are given a joint biography. - hahnch e n 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move back to Draft. Most commonly, I work on articles about and related to games. So when I found this interesting story, I was floored. Is it notable to have a murder within the gaming industry? I don't know, but I have never heard of a game designer killing another game designer. The Battens themselves may or may not be notable, but they have both worked on some pretty notable projects. I did not think that separate articles, or even an article on either individual, made much sense so I wrote one for both. The murder itself seems to have plenty of coverage, both from the local news and sources like Fortune, Kotaku and The Escapist, as well as the print source Designers & Dragons (which describes the crime as "one of the more shocking events in RPG's history") where I first learned of this case. There were a bunch of blogs on my Google search, which I did not use, and I did not know if I should use Whatifgaming even though it had an interview from her work on Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This article in its current state is not my best work, I will grant you that, but I have never started an article on a crime before. I first posted to the WP:VG talk page for advice, and got responses from GamerPro64, Jeraphine Gryphon, Izno, Czar, 1bandsaw, Fakedeeps, and Salvidrim!, some of whom also did some minor edits to the article. I could solve the "bizarre" joint biography by splitting them into two sections, but I was not sure if that was necessary. I was also unsure of what the article's name should be, so that could be changed by anyone with a better idea than me. I was also unsure of what exactly to do with the lead. BOZ (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources appear to me to be more than just local news. 1bandsaw (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing remarkable about this incident. Husband kills wife then tops self. Happens somewhere every day. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WWGB (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. The article's title and content can be adjusted, but the event/people have been covered by different reliable sources so there's enough content to base an article on. Also I found these additional sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?_r=0 and http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26163179.html (Komo News) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've filled in the bare-url refs, does it look more solid now? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it could make a wikinews article since it is news, but the point of an encyclopedia is that you take a ton of different sources and compile them to create an encyclopedic narrative. Someone Googling this will get the same story from Wikipedia or any news article, I don't think the topic is broad enough that combining multiple sources will create anything more than is already there. Wikinews yes, Wikipedia I don't think so. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:27, 26 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) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. The coverage is a bit light, but it's still there. The crime was highlighted by The New York Times in an article about murder-suicides related to domestic violence, and they specifically mentioned that it "made headlines". This seems to be an implicit statement of notability on their part. I can see how people would argue that it's perhaps more applicable to Wikinews, but I think it squeaks by the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with opening (hahnch). Notability is questionable here; but the point is that victims of this domestic violence and their lives were not so domestic. Again, agree over joint biography goof - titles and POV should be different. However, if the event has been covered by significant sources and had notable impact on relevant communities - it might be legible as article. I recommend search and presentation of sources noting enduring effects; or incorporation of information into appropriate (possibly to be created) article, timeline or list. Fakedeeps (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covers barely WP:CRIME and WP:GNG but still it is within the treshold for inclusion. That is my view.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The situation was highlighted by the NYtimes as a case where gun control laws overshadow rights of victims of domestic victims (in 2013), and was cited by a WA state legislator in the passage of a 2014 state gun control law that involved domestic violence [1]. (in addition to the above aspects). --MASEM (t) 16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Despite the NYTimes and Fortune sources above, I'm reiterating my stance in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'd expect significantly more coverage of a news event for it to be considered in an encyclopedia, I'd expect national sources to dedicate articles to the crime, not have a few paragraph on it half-way down on a page filled with other murders. Had it been a cultural object, such as a video game, we'd expect previews, reviews and interviews in national-level publications - we have none of this here. - hahnch e n 21:54, 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 Delete under G12 by Materialscientist. (non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdip Singh Anand[edit]

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

Prod removed multiple times by author. Could not see any signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable individual. reddogsix (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clear case of Copyright Violation. Have tagged it for CSD G12. Lakun.patra (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-not notable. Wgolf (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, removing a PROD once is enough to contest it. WP:PROD is supposed to be simple, not a reason for edit wars. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-it was a BLP prod not a normal prod. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 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. NN for now. Valley2city^‽ 02:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duygu Yetiş[edit]

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

Notability is in question-the show Krem is not on here and can't find if it is notable or not. Now maybe a expert in Turkish actresses could help here. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Miss Yetis is young and may be more notable later in her career, but right now just not enough notability based on IMDB and a Google search. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, wait til she does something notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 2 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nadruvian language[edit]

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

The is not a shred of information about the language spoken by the ages extict Old Prussian tribe of Nadruvians, nor whether they have a separate tongue at all, nor who they were. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention in academia, which is why the article is unsourced, I suppose. Brandmeister^talk 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find 2 sources for the written material ( it is in Lithuania and it is endangered ) But I still vote delete, we have an article Nadruvians that can easily hold the information about their language, if down the road we have so much information about their language we need to spin out an article we can then, but having 2 stubs isn't the best way to get the content developed. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I was able to conclude that these refs are unreliable and do not support what you added to the article, see uts talk page for detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the only information about it is that it was Spoken by Nadruvians. But we know nothing about them. For all we know, they might have been speaking Obregonian. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 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. Drafts should be discussed at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Madumita Digital Studio[edit]

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

WP:Articles for deletion/Madumita Digital Studio is in discussion. Draftifying makes a way to escape deletion. – nafSadh did say 18:23, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuit of the Truth[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about an "upcoming" web series, making no claim of notability that would satisfy either WP:NMEDIA or WP:WEB. While it does have an IMDb page which confirms that it aired in 2013, the mere existence of an IMDb profile is not a notability freebie in and of itself — I did both general web and news searches on Google, as well, but found nothing like the volume of media coverage it would take to make this something that Wikipedia should have an article about (especially not one that's so poorly maintained that it still describes a two-year-old series as "upcoming"). Per WP:NOTINHERITED, further, the fact that a couple of people who were already notable for other things were involved in it does not, in and of itself, constitute a notability freebie either, if the series isn't itself the subject of any media coverage in its own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't want to preclude it from having its own article for the future if it does become notable, these concerns aren't great enough to let crystal-balling be a thing, so Delete. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the show is notable when it releases I think it could make a fine article, as it currently is? I think we can delete it for now. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The community participating in this discussion was unable to establish whether precedent outweighed WP:NHSCHOOL. (Note: this close does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable; instead, it finds that the editors participating in the discussion were unable - and others will most likely be unable - to establish whether it was notable or not.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City[edit]

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

COMMENT Admins, please keep this open until a consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Precedent for precedent.27s sake Jerodlycett (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are contradictions on the page itself, claiming to serve grades 1-12, while being named a Senior Secondary School, which would imply 11-12. I suggest merging into Hindaun#Education or a new list of the local schools if needed per Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools)#If it.27s not notable. The school does not pass WP:NGO per WP:NHSCHOOL, so while it does seem to exist, an article on it does not seem appropriate. Jerodlycett (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add, it was deleted under a different name already. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Abhay Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun city Jerodlycett (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not appear to be notable and it's completely uncited. A merge would be fine ~~but there would have to be some sources first~~ (source added below). PhantomTech (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source Samsara 22:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Sources exist to prove it exists and is a secondary school. That is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's sufficient to talk about it, not to have an entire article on it, per WP:NHSCHOOL. I can't even seem to confirm that it's actually a secondary school, let alone a senior secondary school though. I still feel the best solution is a merger. Can you explain why you feel a keep would be better than a merger? Jerodlycett (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local government seems to think it is: [2] Samsara 03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wikilink the "longstanding precedent and consensus" policy/guideline/essay, please. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I think we need to break the precedent, and that precedent isn't enough to keep but rather just to tie-break, I do know that it's found at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jerodlycett (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, based on that I ended up on the "schools" section of WP:ORG, an ordinary guideline linked from the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. Wisely not mentioning "precedent", because this could upset folks like me, who are not exactly fans of the concept. Yes, I know where the enwiki servers are ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if sourced I think having articles on secondary schools is fine since hopefully students will look at their articles one day and think "hey maybe I can edit this and make it better" and become Wikipedians. that being said, it still needs to have sources, if it can't be referenced I think we can delete it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted (per Afd) article... Neutrality^talk 04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose speedy. Previous AfD consensus was based on non-verifiability. There are sources documenting the existence of the school. Please take care to use the "find sources" links at top before opining on AfDs. Thank you. Samsara 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you feel a keep is better than a merger? Jerodlycett (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both speedily and regularly and/or merge into Hindaun. If there are multiple reliable sources for anything other than this school's mere existence, I cannot find them. Mere passing mentions in directories or news articles is not sufficient to keep this. The administrator or closer who adjudges this discussion must weigh the arguments to keep this particular article, not just act on what usually happens here and those arguments must be enough in quality to either satisfy the WP:NHSCHOOL guideline or to set it aside as a local exception under IAR. Arguments from "precedent" or prior consensuses here at AfD in prior cases are meaningless whereas WP:NHSCHOOL, as a guideline, is the "established consensus" of the community per WP:CONLIMITED. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. There are two independent sources that show the school exists. Samsara 16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your precedent argument totally ignores what is said in the "Citing this page in AfD" section of the very page that you're citing, which boils down to saying that the idea that prior outcomes — a/k/a precedent — may be "useful" but the notability guidelines prevail:

This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. ... Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources.

(Emphasis expanded from original.) As for your sources, the two sources you've linked above are not reliable and even if they were, we'd need more than something than directories — which amount to passing references — which merely indicate existence. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that a government document is a not a reliable source for the existence of an institution reporting to it is a pretty tall tale. Samsara 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ORG#Schools, zero reliable references counting findthebest.in as unsourced spam collection, multiple issues, almost orphaned (one good link from Hindaun suggests that this is no hoax), OSM and Google Maps are apparently unaware of a school at the given coordinates. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Maps is useless for this area - it doesn't even have street names for most streets. Why on Earth then would you expect it to have an accurate record of the identity of individual buildings? Samsara 21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I admit the evidence here is marginal . but it is enough to verify as a secondary school, and that is all that is needed. I'm not willing to overrule a consistent rule thathasservedus well for many years in this one borderline case. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eliacom ESP (Enhanced SQL Portal)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Prod contested by article creator, who appears to share a last name with the writer of the software. I found no independent references, and none are provided. --Finngall ^talk 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this software meeting the notability requirements for Wikipedia. I looked for references and didn't find anything 3rd party. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the page. There is some precedence for software of this type and notability. See SQLyog for instance. On downloads.cnet.com, we get roughly the same number of downloads per week as HeidiSQL and Navicat, which is some independent measure of notability. Still, I understand the software is young, and hasn't had much outside attention as of yet. Pflammer (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Morganstern[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Bypassed several AfC declines. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, does not meet GNG or NACTOR owing to the dearth of reliable source coverage and of significant roles in notable films/TV shows. Everymorning talk 17:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More notable then some articles that get written but still nothing 3rd party to make that notability hit Wikipedia levels.Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is spam at its worse. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find WP:RS to indicate WP:N or meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Barbie Universe[edit]

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

I find notability unclear: fewer than 100 Google hits in total (not sure how many of them can be considered to be giving substantial coverage), and no references in the article. For what it's worth, the article says the pageant was founded in 2011 but a photo carousel I came across purports to show shorts from the 2010 event, leading me to wonder whether they're two different events with the same name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not seem to satisfy GNG, and upon my own search, has little to no worthwhile discussion by reliable sources. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My suggestion for the creator would be to find reliable information about "competitive dolling" source and put a section in the article Doll. If enough information builds up we can spin out Doll competitions which could contain this information. if the aritcle gets big enough we could spin out Miss Barbie Universe But as is I don't see the content to make MBU notable by itself and the Wikipedia landscape doesn't suggest that it is either. I think there is Encyclopedic content here just not a stand-alone article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personally this looks somewhat promotional, Anyway no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob E. Angelino[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman with basically no reliable information available. I did initially try to edit it down to something reasonable (previous version here) but the result is (at best) a poorly cited barebones CV. Nik thestunned 17:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-with basically unotable roles even! Wgolf (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a database to back up imdb. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:25, 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. Michig (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rona De Ricci[edit]

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

Actress who has an amazing 2 roles! And has not been in anything since-the Swedish wiki is the same, not much info at all. Wgolf (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty obvious Keep. ...Just kidding. Delete - so non-notable that I don't even know the movies. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only thing that's popped up on GNews is this article..... No evidence of notability at all, Plus fails NACTOR. –Davey2010^Talk 03:45, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue School Diaries[edit]

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

Non-notable film. No evidence of any significant coverage for this film, either under its English title or its Polish title. PROD removed by article author, stating "this is a new film. Coverage will come." When (if) coverage comes, the article can be re-created. But for now, we have nothing on which to build a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete-too soon. Wgolf (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Director doesn't have an article, cast doesn't have articles, can't find it in IMDB, I don't think it's Wikipedia notable. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now per being TOO SOON. The filmmaker currently lacking an Wikipedia article is not convincing. IMDB not listing this new Polish documentary film is not convincing. However, lacking evidence that it has completed and released is convincing. Fails WP:NFF. Allow a return once notability can be established.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON, No objections for recreation once more concrete stuff pops up. –Davey2010^Talk 03:48, 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. Sources found, problem solved. (Although I would kindly suggest the nom reads "WP:BEFORE" before nominating.) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishali Desai[edit]

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

Article not containing even a single source. Regards, KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 15:49, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have updated the article and added seven references with inline citations from several sources such as The Times of India, India Times and FilmBeat among others. Wit significant coverage across multiple sources the article subject crosses the threshold of notability. WordSeventeen (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes ANYBIO (per Miss International win) and GNG. Cavarrone 11:17, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Many[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete for notability Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only 3rd party coverage I could find was a local news team covering his desire to break a record for watching the simpsons for a marathon duration ( oddly this isn't in his wikipedia article ) writing for huffington isn't exactly notable either. Sounds like a cool guy but not noteworthy. the bit about breaking a simpsons marathon maybe could make a wikinews story if it has a second source. but that's all I'm seeing at the moment. Bryce Carmony (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, Been deleted twice and no doubt this'll be the third - I would suggest Salting but usually that gets ignored so won't even bother, So best leave it unsalted so it can be recreated .... and then redeleted....... –Davey2010^Talk 03:52, 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 redirect to Donut Kings. Don't see anything to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Bite[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Evacuation Possible Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donut Kings. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge discography can fit in band article easily Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Hard to disagree with the above. --Inother (talk) 19:25, 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 redirect to Donut Kings. Don't see anything to merge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bizmark[edit]

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

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Evacuation Possible Wgolf (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donut Kings. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School Food (album)[edit]

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

A album that probably should be redirected to the band, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Evacuation Possible Wgolf (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS. Karlhard ^{(talk to me)} 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.7.44 (talk) [reply]
Delete per Karlhard and WP:NALBUMS. Does not appear to be notable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 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 Donut Kings. Don't see anything useful to merge (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Evacuation Possible[edit]

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

Album that would probably be the best to be redirected to the band. Wgolf (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donut Kings. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donut Kings. Doesn't need to be taken to AFD to do that. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Inother (talk) 19:32, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acrosync[edit]

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

Possibly unotable backup application (made by a promo account) that also looks like it falls under too soon even. Wgolf (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I declined speedy deletion for this article.) I can't find anything but SEO, press releases, and user-generated content, in roughly that order of density. Delete for failing WP:NSOFT. —Cryptic 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT; unable to find any sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: yeah not much about it apart from the fact that it is an independent implementation of rsync protocol, will try and De-spamafy it. Gioto (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's no reason to keep the article. Writing software to implement a published protocol isn't particularly noteworthy in and of itself, and certainly not so overwhelmingly noteworthy that we should set aside our usual inclusion criteria for it. Its mentions in rsync#Variations and rsync#rsync applications are already more than enough, by a factor of three or four. —Cryptic 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, and that is why I added it to the table on rsync#rsync applications Gioto (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no 3rd party reference, and too new (2014-10-30) for an encyclopedic article. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Warriors[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep I'm sure there is plenty of press coverage, one hopes not all like the Toronto Star's "Waterloo rocked by college football doping scandal" - see refs. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While certainly this needs further sourcing improvement, there is already some reliable sourcing here and other sourcing can be located. In addition, there's a potential bias issue, in that would be a double-standard to claim that the elite level of American college and university varsity sports teams automatically pass our inclusion standards but the equivalent level of Canadian college and university varsity sports teams automatically fail them. For both of those reasons, I'd certainly prefer to keep, though I'd also fully accept redirection to University of Waterloo if consensus determines that the overall quality of the article just ain't there — but top-level intercollegiate sports are a thing that Wikipedia readers do expect coverage of on here, so this is unequivocally enough of a potential search term, and has more than enough "notability in principle", that it must exist as either an article or a redirect. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep top level university team, better as a grouping all sports (as opposed to just an article about the football team, for example). With the fear of resorting to an other stuff exists sort of argument, it seems to meet we generally have these sorts of articles. For example, in Ontario alone, all the university teams have articles excepting Laurentian and Trent (and potentially now, Waterloo). There should be sources out there, and as Bearcat said, top level university sport articles are the sort of page that Wikipedia is generally expected to have. WP:NCOLLATH is about people, but that should broadly apply to the team(s) as well, which have won national (university) championships. Poor referencing is not grounds for deletion.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This nomination appears to be based on a case of mistaken identity (see here). This particular team is located in Waterloo, Canada, not Waterloo, Belgium. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Waterloo Warriors (Belgium) is the team in Belgium. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the argument for deleting this article is valid. This is a notable organization, and while the sports teams associated with the University of Waterloo are not as high profile as at some other universities, they are still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Trb333 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 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 merge to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CLUB or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There is a serious question regarding the notability of the teams in the league, and there is virtually no content that is not duplicated in the league article and the articles for the other teams in the league. Any noteworthy content should be merged to Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique with a redirect to that page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 26 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) 10:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

' Merge and redirect' Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; I assume the oher teams in the league will be treated similarly. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The Andenne Bears article has already been merged and redirected, and there are pending AfDs for each of the other teams in the league. Don't forget to register your opinion in each of those AfD discussions, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so I did, but you forgot to nominate La Louvière Wolves . I'll comment in this field, if its as obvious as this. but I'd rather not nominate DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ligue_Francophone_de_Football_Amercain_de_Belgique as suggested above. Appears to be an amateur sports team only slightly more serious than a social football club. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:26, 4 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 to Musical Youth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Waite[edit]

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

Bio for late bassist for Musical Youth. No references here and no evidence of notability independently of the band. Attempts to redirect to band page reverted by article author. If consensus is to not keep the article, then I propose restoring the redirect and protecting it from further editing. --Finngall ^talk 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Take out the unsourced claims about crimes (which I'm going to do) and it's all in the Musical Youth article. --Michig (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not independently notable, existing band article suffices. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 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 Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shimantik[edit]

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

Lack of significance and promotional tone. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12. As all texts are copy pasted from company website, which is a copyvio. – nafSadh did say 20:12, 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No reviews, charting, good sales (gold). Notability is not inherited from the labels or bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perfectly notable compilation with plenty of coverage. A search yields many results, will place reliable resources on talk page; agree that improvement tag is still required after AfD-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, failing WP:GNG, doesn't pass WP:NALBUMS either. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability, per Duffbeerforme. -Zanhe (talk) 21:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yolande Milan Batteau[edit]

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

no apparent critical comment, no works in major museums. Individual items in magazines. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 10:32, 18 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, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantial coverage is found. While it is hard to say for certain since most the refs in the article aren't linked online, I tracked down a few of them and all were trivial mentions or less. The only ref resembling non-trivial coverage is #10, which is a blog and not a reliable source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any news or book coverage of this artist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 14:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metro 1998[edit]

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

Game doesn't appear to be notable. -- haminoon (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 09:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find a single piece of information on this product. The previous article, created by Devbulgames (talk · contribs) was speedy deleted for being a blatant advertising article. The user was blocked and has now recreated the article under a new name Metro1998 (talk · contribs) with less promotional content. Still, the user block evading and there is a clear conflict of interest. -- The1337gamer (talk) 10:07, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larry g(EE)[edit]

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

Subject has received passing mention in multiple reliable sources but none that appear to be significant coverage, therefore subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, subject does not appear to be notable as set forth in WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSBIO. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator although it is my opinion subject does not pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSBIO, given that the subject has a rather long blog written about him in the Dallas Observer, I am withdrawing my nomination. IMHO the Dallas Morning News source is not very in-depth.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:23, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article in dallas news and 2 articles in culture brats are enough to get it over the WP:GNG barrier. These all have substantial contnet. I do note that some other references are just a passing mention. But the 3 are enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prathik Ponnanna[edit]

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

Mr. Ponnanna doesn't meet WP:GNG. He is a candidate for the Karnataka Legislative Assembly but he doesn't hold any elected position at the present, except that he is president of a students' union. The organizations he is a member of aren't notable. The party he started and leads, Yuva Bharath Party, is a newly formed party with minimal news coverage. He also leads Yuva Codava, that is a young and small organization (200+ members according to the article) and also with minimal news coverage. Sjö (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking reliable sources (and one of the sources in the article is WordPress, which is very unreliable), and the article has too manynissues with it, and he seems to be only notable locally. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it is converted to something other than a fan page. As it stands, it looks like... No, not much I can say here that would not be construed as a personal attack. Suffice to say that the content is poorly sourced, partisan, and non-encyclopedic. ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The House in the Hole in the Side of the Tree[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and no editorial activity since 2011. I have to wonder who is creating these things and why? I am pretty sure I am no longer a dyed-in-the-wool Inclusionist. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 12:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced and not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep-I did find a ref here: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5023645-the-house-in-the-hole-in-the-side-of-the-tree maybe userfied as well. Wgolf (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads isn't usable as a reliable source. At best it's a database mixed in with a social media outlet since anyone with an account can add a review to Goodreads akin to how anyone with an account can add a review to Amazon or IMDb. It's also not exceedingly difficult to get a book added to Goodreads since you only need to petition a librarian to have the book added and Goodreads is fairly liberal about giving people this position. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Knuth[edit]

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

Non-notable scenic designer and art director lacking non-trivial support. Awards appear to be minor/local. reddogsix (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 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, Nakon 05:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't know why I found the part about living with his cats the most amusing part in this article. Which that really isn't a good thing. Anyway-Delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he's art director for the Second City, which is a national improv group based in Chicago. That being said, sourcing could be better. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily found lots of discussion of his sets in reviews of shows "the intimacy of the space and the simplicity of Bob Knuth's shoe-box set design — which dials back big-musical expectations (an ensemble of six feels just about right) and connects you more to the cartoon, TV and movie characters that are the reasons most people are buying a ticket.[3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 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 Redirect to Hollywood Heights (TV series) --Mdann52 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Cody Longo[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, references are to IMDB and the subjects website with a few that don't seem to mention him at all. I have searched a bit and cant find much about him other than bios and tabloid websites. TheMesquito^buzz 01:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollywood Heights (TV series), the only project with a pulse the subject had long-term; otherwise a long line of non-notable 'it's that guy' guest roles. No prejudice to recreation if a high-profile role is given to them. Nate • (chatter) 02:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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, Nakon 05:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tropic Zone (film)[edit]

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

Film lacks notability. No WP:RSes have established its notability as a film. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator removed my Notability:Film tag and said "of course its notable." He then said in the talk page: "Dude, its a movie starring Ronald Reagan, released by Paramount Pictures. Of course its notable. A quick google search could tell you that." Unfortunately, a google search does not produce any WP:RSes that I could find proving notability re: WP:NOTFILM. And no notability is given via solely Reagan or Paramount, as said above. This movie has drifted out of memory. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it had no impact, it does not meet these criteria: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" or "deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release." or "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" or "was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." or "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Nor was it "selected for preservation in a national archive." Nor is it "taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." It's not notable, so delete it.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At a quick glance of Google, i have already found 4 reliable sources [4], [[5], [6] and [7]. Its pretty insane that you would even nominate this. Koala15 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not cut and dry. Those articles are trivial. Meaning they aren't actual sources talking about the film, but simply listing the cast and crew, not discussing notability, or anything like that. They're trivial, by Wiki standards.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To misquote Gwen Stefani, this [film] is bananas. Turning up online, unpaywalled sources for a 1953 B movie can take a little work, but just as Koala15 says, a Paramount theatrical release starring Ronald Reagan is self-evidently a notable picture. I've added a few sources; more can be seen (some behind paywalls or snippets) at GBooks, such as [8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would consider only the second of those a WP:RS mentioning the film non-trivially, and this movie needs "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" to meet the criteria WP has set previously.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are shitting me, right? It stars Ronald Reagan! Read WP:BEFORE before wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. An assumption that a film directed by Lewis R. Foster, produced by William H. Pine and William C. Thomas and starring Ronald Reagan, Rhonda Fleming, Estelita Rodriguez, Noah Beery Jr., Grant Withers, and John Wengraf is non-notable is ridiculous on its face. Pardon nominator... but did you actually look for sources before making up your mind, or did you chose to judge the article in an unimproved status? Film's "other attributes to consider" are NOT mandatory criteria... they are simply suggestions to encourage diligent before. And further, "Drifted out of memory" is NOT a deletion criteria. I urge you to read WP:NRVE to learn that topic notability is based upon sources being available, and not upon a use or not to cite a topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay okay, withdrawing my nomination. Also, AGF, En face, this film doesn't inherit notability, etc, etc. but I can see a lot of other people think it's notable. I did google search for sources, and as said above, it is actually pretty difficult to find them. Also, you can't just assume notability. There's a process for a reason. Even so, I'll withdraw because you all think it's notable. I recommend you all AGF, things aren't so black and white.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:20, 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learnium International School[edit]

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

withdrawn by nom This is a good faith AfD and I'm sorry if im blindly missing some policy point. Maybe it's that I don't understand what an international school is (public v. private?) but I don't see why this school meets notability criteria. However, if it has the same equivalent as a U.S. high school and not just some private enterprise, maybe it's more complicated? Gaff (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This school has a secondary school section and can be verified to exist. Secondary/high schools are almost always kept per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a comment then or a !vote for keep? --Gaff (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. It would take a better foundation in policy for me to give a keep vote. That said, high school deletion nominations usually end the the school being kept. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (essay not policy). • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is irrelevant to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn I found sources and will rewrite the article.--Gaff (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This stub is not sourced properly and needs to be reworded. (The creator seems to be a new editor). OK, but that's no reason to delete it. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 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. No prejudice against creation of separate list articles based upon the Wikipedia categories of Category:Garage rock compilation albums and Category:Psychedelic rock compilation albums. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of garage rock and psychedelic rock compilation albums[edit]

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

A list with no references and filled with mostly redlinks, should fall under WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. TheMesquito^buzz 01:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The amount of redlinks says it all. It wouldn't be so bad if the albums had WP articles but since they don't, that confirms to me that the albums have next to no notability to speak of. Therefore this feels like an indiscriminate list of information. Mattg82 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An AFD needs to look at more than just the current state of an article (see WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, and WP:NOTCLEANUP), so the presence of redlinks and no secondary source citations at present are not relevant. There are over 80 articles in Category:Garage rock compilation albums and its subcategories, and somewhere around 300 in Category:Psychedelic rock compilation albums, so there's no question of whether there are enough albums with articles to list here. And if they're notable, then there isn't any question of verifying their genre even if it's not apparent from the album itself (as it will be with most themed compilations).
However, I'm not clear on why these two genres are being listed together, unless it's just because of the Nuggets series apparently doing so (though Allmusic has called that compilation series "of seismic importance"). postdlf (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 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 // 01:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too many redlinks, and exactly where is the link between "garage rock" and "psychedelic rock" coming in? 0 inline references, woolly inclusion criteria based on pure WP:OR, and do we even know for a fact that these compilations all actually exist? The title also implies that the compilation albums consist of "garage rock and psychedelic rock", rather than that it lists compilations of each genre on their own. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:18, 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 and redirect. Daniel (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hani (singer)[edit]

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

I don't believe Hani is independently notable outside of EXID. She's in a few reality shows, but I think it's too soon for an individual article. WP:BAND states this: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable. Random86 (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The article's "filmography" section makes it looks like she's had acting roles in movies or TV shows, but they're actually all variety shows. As the nom said, that activity alone doesn't qualify a person as notable. The one source in the article isn't even about the show for which it's listed. A list of variety show appearances is the kind of thing that normally gets chopped out of band and singer articles, which would leave this article with zero content. There's nothing even to merge to EXID. Shinyang-i (talk)

There's nothing even to merge to EXID ? I disagree. Hani's name in Hangul, and other personal details. If she does not currently deserve a separate article, these things should at least be added to the EXID one. Gavin (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The hangul are already in the EXID article and wouldn't require a merge to be moved anyway. The only personal detail is her birthday, which is unreferenced and can't be kept. All the TV shows are unreferenced except one, so they wouldn't be kept, either, and as I said above, lists of variety show one-offs aren't appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. I'm going to drop you a note on your talk page with some suggestions for the EXID article, okay? :) Shinyang-i (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she appear in a lot of tv series and also she appear as main cast in tv show include A Style for You, Off to School and Crime Scene. Kanghuitari (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To any admin who may be viewing this, A Style for You and Off to School are variety (reality) shows, not acting roles. I don't know what Crime Scene is. Shinyang-i (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Dever97 (talk) 10:01, 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 // 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shinyang-i's comments. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kanghuitari's comments. Donottroll (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she mostly was guest in varitey shows in short time (NO DRAMA) and her activites is'nt notable outside her group ,delete or redirect to EXID (Pikhmikh (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

not short, not guest. she is main cast in many shows. She became famous also as a television personality now. Kanghuitari (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep missing the point. The question isn't "main cast" or not, the issue is the type of programs she's on. She's on variety (reality) shows - read the original nomination - it quotes WP:BAND where it says that isn't enough for a standalone article! Shinyang-i (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In South Korea, she is notable as TV personality. We just need to add the contents. Bradley sniper (talk) 07:13, 2 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Blues Theater[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY but it was deprodded by editor who felt it needed full evaluation and could possibly meet WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have to agree with the nom that evidence on the web is pretty thin. I found that surprising. I would have thought that a theater company that has survived for 30 years in a major city like Chicago would have received a ton of coverage. Perhaps it used to exist and is now gone. Online newspaper archives only go back so far. For now, my keep !vote is provisional based on the number of world premieres, these reviews at Chicago Stage Review, and the number of Jefferson Awards – 13 awards and more nominations according to this page. If new evidence emerges I'll change it to a definite keep. If not I may have to reconsider. We have OTRS permission for material from the company, but we can't base the whole article on that. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:15, 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 // 00:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open-space learning[edit]

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

This methodology does not demonstrate that it is used outside of the University of Warwick, and thus does not demonstrate how it is notable. Primefac (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Books gives me a number of mentions in papers and publications in education, but I am not seeing enough from the excerpts to determine whether it is passing or not. [10] (source #1 in article) remains the most prominent with the name right in the book title. [11] has a section on "Open-space Technology" within its "A to Z of Collective Learning" part. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This appears to be the same as the open classroom, a popular pedagogical fad in the 1970s. Perhaps merge? Bearian (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MichaelQSchmidt's point is the most compelling here, but there does not seem to be a clear consensus that it makes the article's subject fully notable. Therefore, this discussion is found to have not established (via consensus) whether or not the article's subject is notable, nor whether it should be deleted. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love at First Sight (2012 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Looks to have a very impressive list of awards but none of them are major. Some are extremely minor. Has a ridiculous number of sources but there is a lack of good sources. Most are just listings. If no sources were found, just make some [12] [13] [14]. The is a lack of coverage about this film. In the current version there is no in depth reviews from recognised critics. A search found none.
A look at some of the sources.
2. The McIvor Times (from Heathcote, Victoria, circulation 987 [15])

"‘‘This was successful with more than 50 people attending the matinee session,’’ she said."

"The jury prize, consisting of $1500 and a magnum of the limited release 2012 Jasper Hill Georgia’s Paddock Shiraz, was awarded to Love at First Sight, a romantic comedy written and directed by UK-based filmmaker Mark Playne."

Very small town festival, trivial coverage of film.

4. News Express of India

"the first annual international film festival of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies ,New Delhi"

"In the fiction film category, an international entry ‘Love at first sight’ by Mark Playne won the first spot"

"The winning films by the jury were given the cash prizes of more of Rs 70,000 under different categories, in the valedictory ceremony." A touch over $1000.

Student festival, trivial coverage of film.

6. Golden Palmera Film Festival.

Just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.

8. Film Festival Life

just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.

10. House of Shorts

Trailer. Not an independent reliable source.

This is advertising from paid spammers. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've dropped a note at WT:FILM for more input. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sheer amount of peacock language and worthless citations lead me to a knee-jerk 'delete' vote, but there are a few valid, secondary sources. The problem is whether regional film festival awards on their own are enough to satisfy WP:NFILM. I'm not sure. But if this article is kept, it's going to be need to be rewritten. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NFILM's pretty foursquare on what they consider notable awards: Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Palme d'Ors, that standard. Nondescript school festivals are so far from counting I can't even see them. Fails the GNG, going away. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's Not Well - National Names 2000 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per at least 31 wins & 6 nominations being pretty darn decent peer recognition for a 14-minute film. Admittedly, searches are hampered by its name being shared with numerous other films. WP:SOFIXIT Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:31, 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 // 00:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, arrived at via applying common sense to the notability guideline: this film has been heavily screened at festivals around the world; has won what seems to be a large number of festival awards (even if not the A-list of fests, dozens of wins still seems like a big number); was premiered at the Palm Springs ShortFest which apparently has some sort of selection process and ranks alongside Sundance and Cannes as a top short film festival; is at least mentioned in a couple of RS news sources (OC Register, a triple-Pulitzer winning CA paper; Zee News, big media machine in India); features an actor (Shane Zaza) with at least one credit in a major movie (The Davinci Code); and is currently active (on sale at iTunes; web site lists multiple festival screening dates in 2015). Further, WP's notability guideline suggesting "significant coverage" is in large part to ensure that there is enough material for an article (WP:WHYN). Here, the article even as it stands (the insane festival list aside) does have the main elements of a film article in place - plot, cast, production detail, reception - and there is more info on the film's web site (which should be an acceptable source for non-controversial info about itself). Altogether, on a continuum from home movies to Oscar-winning Hollywood blockbusters, this would seem to be far enough along to be considered more notable than not. (FYI, I have no connection with anything to do with this film, never heard of it before the last hour, realize from clicking that it is part of a multi-article effort to have it included in WP, and haven't watched it. :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:05, 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. Daniel (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Playne[edit]

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

Not notable. One of his films appears to have a very impressive list of awards (many for him) but none of them are major. Some are extremely minor. Has a ridiculous number of sources but there is a lack of good sources. Most are just listings. If no sources were found, just make some [16] [17] [18]. The is a lack of coverage about Playne. In the current version there is local interest puff piece [19] that has any depth of coverage about him. A search found none better. This is advertising from paid spammers. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. He's directed one film which has received some local coverage, but there isn't sufficient coverage in high-quality sources to satisfy either WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage to meet WP:BIO and awards to meet WP:ANYBIO. No evidence has been brought forward to support the nom's allegation of paid spam editing by author Fraancosd. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "coverage" is 11 hits. First ""Love at First Sight," director Mark Playne." is the complete trivial mention. Just a listing. Second. Unrelated. Third. "In the fiction film category, an international entry ‘Love at first sight’ by Mark Playne won the first spot " That's it, trivial coverage. Fourth. "The audience choice award was given to the short film Love at First Sight by Mark Playne from United Kingdom." That;s it, trivial coverage. Fifth. "Amor a primera vista. Dirección: Mark Playne. País: Reino Unido" Just a listing. None even remotely good enough for WP:BIO. No major awards does not meet WP:ANYBIO. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 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 // 00:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SmartSE's comments. CookieMonster755 (talk) 18:20, 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 More popular than Jesus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datebook[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this magazine meets WP:NOTABILITY. A WP:COI editor for a company named 'Datebook' has been edit warring to overwrite this, so prod was removed that way. The article should remain on the magazine, and then the dating company could be moved here if this is deleted. Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep The whole bigger than Jesus thing was pretty noteable and if the issues in the USA were first produced through this then it might meet notability. Amortias (T)(C) 22:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 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 // 00:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to More_popular_than_Jesus since that is the only thing for which it is known, as far as I see. (If some other article needs the place, add a hatnote for disambiguation.) Tigraan (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tigraan makes a good proposal, I wouldn't object to that redirect, Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Datebook (dating agency) has now been deleted at AfD, so that complication is now out of the equation. Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H. William Vivanco-Mackie[edit]

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

WP:GNG Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines. There is a paucity of secondary sources that could contribute to an article about this person. User: LittleT889 (User talk: LittleT889) 10:11, 30 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be more widely circulated - he seems notable in Peru, but I am not fluent in Spanish NealeFamily (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a log page. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination. --Finngall ^talk 13:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A h-index of 1. Was "a member of" a cloning team. Nothing notable here. -- 120.17.55.37 (talk) 11:15, 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 // 00:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither coverage nor actions establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Demeusy[edit]

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

Article is about an animator with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish general notability nor that for creative professionals. Whpq (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 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 // 00:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of coverage to pass notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-okay so yeah Tron 2 and Game of Thrones are notable enough but other then that don't see much notability. Too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:25, 2 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isis Carmen Jones[edit]

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

Unotable former child star with only 2 roles (though I do find it amusing that she played a young Whoopi Goldberg in both of them) Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately I'm finding everything on Isis and nothing on her which I guess would be pretty obvious anyway, Fails NACTOR –Davey2010^Talk 05:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB notable , yes, Wikipedia notable, no. Bryce Carmony (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete short appearances in a few roles do not pass notable. IMDB seeks to be a comprehensive listing, Wikipedia does not seek articles on anyone who has ever appeared in TV or film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The New IP[edit]

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

WP:IMPORTANCE -- not notable, from an editorial sponsored by software-defined networking company, Brocade Communications Systems. nenolod (talk) (edits) 13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional background is seen in the article it came from -- [20], there was no mention of "the new IP" in relation to networking until then, in fact, a google search for "the new IP" shows lots of listings about intellectual property; not networking. My conclusion is that it's just wiki spam, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenolod (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms New IP and The New IP were trademarked at the USPTO by Brocade Communications Systems on Aug 19, 2014 (t/m serial numbers: 86371458 and 86371460). I concur that this article should be deleted. The term is purely a marketing term. --User:nickhilliard

I also agree that the page The New IP should be deleted. In fact, if you wanted to learn what it was, the current Wikipedia page for it will get you nothing you need to know what it really is. I vote for deletion. Seer (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is, the Brocade CEO won't even tell people what The New IP even is. So not only is it marketing, its marketing for a product that doesn't exist yet. I agree, this should be deleted. Diablo-D3 (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If you Google "The New IP" you get a lot of news article hits. Example [21]. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are lots of new articles - the Brocade CEO has been flogging his wares. All the news articles are copy-pasterino of that and this wikipedia article that is proposed for deletion. It is a junk marketing term not an actual thing which is precisely the point - this Wikipedia article is part of the problem not the solution. It doesn't make the grade of WP:IMPORTANCE and is WP:PROMOTION (see 1, 2, 4 and 5) and nothing more. FWIW it may some day be an actual thing but today it isn't and the only company pushing it that's involved in tech at all (as in being non-news) are the company that owns the Trademark. Wikipedia should have all kinds of issues with that. Streaky (talk) 16:57, 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 // 00:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious WP:ARTSPAM ("...simplify network processes, increase flexibility and control from users, and provide an alternative..."). Tigraan (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The term is as per above WP:PROMOTION, doesn't make the grade of WP:IMPORTANCE (the article sources are copypastrami of each other), is mostly just a link to SDN and NFV which this term may or may not be adverspam for (hard to really tell from any of the articles) - but the principles encapsulated would be better discussed there despite being purely marketing terms in their own right. It doesn't make the grade for notability by any standard definition but even if it hypothetically did it's just the beginning of this article's issues and why it shouldn't exist. Streaky (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom and what others have said. Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G5, blocked user creation. Ged UK 13:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kannada songs recorded by Sonu Nigam[edit]

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

Long song list with only unreliable sources-also kind of is a duplicate of the article that has a discography for this artist that I found. Wgolf (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I like to add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bengali songs recorded by Sonu Nigam to this. Wgolf (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment – This article seems to be much more complete than the one on Bengali songs. I could see it as a supplement to the Sonu Nigam article. Is he that notable? – Margin1522 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 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 // 00:16, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Amaral[edit]

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

Article is an unsourced stub, not evidence of notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Delete as proposer. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 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 // 00:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The Portuguese wiki shows that she has quite a bit of notability actually. (Granted I don't know that language but looking over it....) Wgolf (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes her Portuguese wikipage suggests a regular working actress. Sources include this one, plus here (a photo shows her featured on a magazine cover), there was a biography written about her, she died tragically. Another source here, also here. One day her page got almost 2000 pageviews, a sign of interest even though of course pageview tallies are not an official measure. I think she mostly worked in Brazil (not Portugal), dying in Rio de Janeiro. Another unofficial test (I use it, usually correlates with notability): image consistency; like if we put her name in quotes, then search for "images", such as here, the same person comes up in lots of images (not different people).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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