Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 March	10 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle (doll)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sources in the Annabelle article are vastly stronger. Bushman's article used NYDailyNews and Youtube VS. Yahoo News, USA Today, and IBT in this article. The only reliable sources are possibly mysanantonio and maybe http://www.tvqc.com/, but I am not sure even about those sources. To compare a doll which inspired two multi-million grossing blockbusters with solid sources to the Bushman's article is ridiculous. In fact the sources you mentioned (by large number of news and media outlets, many of them normally considered "reliable") are vastly stronger yet none of these were posted in the discussion so I am fine with Randykitty's close, though given these new sources a DRV maybe in contention. Also at the time Bushman's article was a BLP and thus not comparable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 00:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are other sources:

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

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

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

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

The New Haven Register contains the following statements of fact:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edit by Sławomir Biały AGF?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yotsapon Teangdar[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosapol Tiangda. Not sure which is the correct spelling. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject HAS played in the Thai Premier League, and as such passes WP:NFOOTBALL, as demonstrated in the previous AfD two years ago. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Under these circumstances, the article is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vani Jairam. Anything worth merging is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Jairam filmography[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't need a largely unsourced list of almost 650 films. The most relevant ones seem to already be listed in the subject's bio and/or other websites. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-unsourced and who knows how many are actually his. but dang-650 films???? really??? Wgolf (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although it is common to have a separate article for filmography or discography, I am not convinced that this article should exist as almost the entire page in unsourced and we are not even sure if those film names are real. For 650 films, only 3 sources and less than 20 films have wikilinks?? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just put this one up for a similar one: Sadhana Sargam filmography (I put a prod instead of a AFD) Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / partial merge to Vani Jairam. Even though it is acceptable common practice to have separate filmography lists for notable actors with large bodies of work, the entire list would overwhelm the target and the target best serves our readers by including only those films that can be properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lone Star Soccer Alliance. If there is anything worth merging to Lone Star Soccer Alliance, the content is still available in the article histories. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Lone Star Soccer Alliance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS because it is a season article for a regional developmental league. The Lone Star Soccer Alliance is not a fully professional league and as such, an article over every season of this leagues existence just simply isn't notable. See also: WP:NOTSTATS Tavix | Talk 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk 03:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - far too low a level to necessitate a stat dump. Although WP:NSEASONS actually discusses only team articles, although its spirit has historically been applied to league seasons themselves. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge it with Lone Star Soccer Alliance, the same for other season articles of this league, make it a more comprehensible article Abcmaxx (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Lone Star Soccer Alliance, which would enhance the article. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging because it would just be a stat dump. Tavix | Talk 21:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Keri (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace and Wallechinsky[edit]

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

From what I can tell-this is basically a very brief bio of 2 people that could easily just go into both of the articles. Wgolf (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - useless. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just add the info to the articles. PhantomTech (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orla Tobin (actress)[edit]

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

Article is about an actress with no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The roles listed in the article are a couple of supporting parts in made for TV movies, and a role in a stage production of "Blood Wedding" for which I can find no information whatsoever. The last two pictures which are listed should both have been released by now but I can find no information about them at all. Whpq (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~I found this [1] but I'm sure it's someone else entirely, Other than that~~ I can't find anything at all so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is Orla Tobin (Rose of Tralee). -- Whpq (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Damnit I thought so, Thanks for letting me know anyway :) –Davey2010^Talk 04:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable, didn't check for sources but IMDB doesn't seem to have much on it so there probably aren't any. PhantomTech (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of her supporting roles even has a last name. I can't find any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Memphis Mafia. Michig (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Smith (Memphis Mafia)[edit]

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

Article falls under category of WP:INHERITED because of his familial relationship to Elvis Presley. As with his brother's article (Billy Smith (Memphis Mafia)), this individual has no real notability on his own. Was a member of Elvis' "Memphis Mafia", but not one of the better known and more notable members of the group. Other than books published with a passing reference to Smith in them, majority of article references are from questionable sources. If article not deleted, suggest it to be merged with or redirected to Memphis Mafia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Memphis Mafia per WP:NOTINHERITED rationale. Vrac (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Notable enough for a mention in that article, but no more. Relentlessly (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A10. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Healing & Prophetic Ministries[edit]

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

Appears to be a corrupted copy of the article Antioch Mission Baptist Church of Miami Gardens, with no references that pertain to the subject of this article (and none can be found). Dwpaul ^Talk 20:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Don't usually close this early but rather alot of sources have been provided and no one's objected to it being deleted so shall close as Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption of the Beast[edit]

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

Reason BlaccCrab (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC) It's an unauthorized album by an over the hill artist which did not chart on a relevant chart.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage for the album [2][3][4][5][6][7] is sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 04:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - artist's current fame is irrelevant, as is how the album was published, so long as it gets coverage per Gongshow above. Earflaps (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winifred Hill Murphy[edit]

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

The subject's only coverage in reliable sources seem to be mentions incidental to her office. Coverage is not significant enough to pass general notability or notability for politicians. Jbh (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not referenced enough to be notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references and does not show notability GoneWilde (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Noises[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google reveals coverage at Paste [8], PopMatters [9], American Songwriter [10], Spin [11], and The A.V. Club [12], for starters. Looks like enough material to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - my error. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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^‽ 00:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zaigham Khan[edit]

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

After several years, still unclear that he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (fails WP:BIO). kashmiri ^TALK 20:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. PhantomTech (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and unclear notability. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-looks like it was proded in 2011 but refs were added then. But now nothing. Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would be helpful if the sources mentioned in this discussion would be added to the article. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Evershed-Martin[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. There are 2 possible redirect targets: Chichester Festival Theatre and Mayor of Chichester. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Chichester Festival Theatre is the key here. Notable enough for the National Portrait Gallery to have a sketch of him [13] and, what swings it for WP:N, obits in national broadsheets [14] Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in a major national newspaper is certainly sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary for achievement[edit]

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

Unremarkable literature with no references. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 19:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search reveals only websites selling these workbooks. Unable to locate anything that establishes notability. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 20:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darke Complex[edit]

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

Cool band and all, but why the hell is this on here? This band doesn't even have a single release. Really don't see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:BAND let alone a band that only has a couple thousand FB likes who played a couple shows even really needs to be noted on an encyclopedia. EP isn't even out yet and when it is out, highly doubtful the thing will chart. None of the members have ever been involved in anything previous either that is noteful or noteworthy. I just feel like this definitely needs to go. Second Skin (talk) 18:50, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between islam and the bahai faith[edit]

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

This entire article seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. PhantomTech (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether what is there now is OR (yes) or over reliance on primary sources (yes) I think think there is a significant amount of reliable sources on the matter. Delete unless reliable sources can be brought to bear beyond primary sources. --Smkolins (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only WP:OR, but totally promotional. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked through JSTOR and there's likely enough sources for an article on Bahai-Islamic relations, however this article as it stands has serious POV issues (the claim of the first sentence is a heavily disputed one), as well has the aforementioned WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH issues. Probably best to just blow it up and start over at a later point. Will be willing to change to support if someone substantially rewrites the entire article. Bosstopher (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just imagined an encyclopedia full of "The difference between..." articles, about religions, or political parties, or pornographic actresses,and each article the subject of bitter conflict. Please, no. NebY (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 currently notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISITEP[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable ephemeral project. No independent sources.As usual for such EU-funded projects, a WP article is created by a SPA, full of wonderful promises about what the project will accomplish, anyday now, really. Article full of gobbledygook, low on real content. Lots of name-dropping with an impressive-sounding list of participants. This is less impressive than it seems: If I get a grant from the EU tomorrow, it will not be me signing the agreement, but my employer. Still, it's just poor old me running the project. Brief projects like this rarely get notable, even if their products sometimes are (in which case we should have an article on the product with a line about the funding, not that this is the case here)." Article de-PRODded by article creator ith reason "he judgment of "non-notable ephemeral project" is just the personal opinion of the reviewer. The merit of the project can only be verifed at the end of the project itself. The project is actually approved by EU and stared" (sic, I guess "started" was meant). I actually agree with that assessment: "The merit of the project can only be verifed at the end of the project itself." That is: not now. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Randykitty. There is little to no secondary coverage for this work in progress, which might (WP:CRYSTAL) somebody be notable.--Gaff (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May someday be notable, if it achieves something. Relentlessly (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to highlight that the Wikipedia page concerns the ISITEP project (which is "now") and not products resulting from the project (which, I agree, are "not now"). The project is something currently concrete. Many other ongoing project are present on Wikipedia. When (someone can say “if”) the project will lead to a product, this will be described in an own Wikipedia page. The general doubts about project results (defined ephemeral for no particular reason) cannot negate the current existence of the project, which is the object of the Wikipedia page. --Pokas_it (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Ephemeral" is there for a very good reason: projects are funded for a limited period of time (or did the EU give you funds for the next 25 years? No? Thought so...) and the resulting consortia are therefore exactly that: "ephemeral". Many things are "currently concrete", but that does not make them notable. My cat is very concrete, but not encyclopedic either. And the few (not all that many) ongoing projects that we have on WP either should also be taken to AfD (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) or actually do have independent sources that make them meet our inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand (but I don’t agree with) the raised points. My opinion, and the reason why I started this new page, is simply that finding information about ongoing project may be useful for people making research in the same field, as well as for generic readers that are looking for information about the research trends. Having a picture about what have been done so far and in which direction are going active projects is something interesting and useful if you are trying to analyse a particular argument (in this case the interoperability of professional mobile radio) on Wikipedia. But if this is somehow not meeting Wikipedia guidelines, of course I accept it. [(“or did the EU give you funds for the next 25 years? No?” - Well, the correct form is “...give them funds...”, since EU is giving me nothing for this project... But this argument is not relevant for a constructive discussion.)] --Pokas_it (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what WP is about: it's an encyclopoedia, not a site to keep people informed about ongoing research projects. For this, there are the project's own website (not very informative in this case), EU-databases of funded projects, and other specialist sites. That the project is funded for only 3 years is relevant, as it shows how ephemeral this kind of consortia are. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what an encyclopedia is, and I never said that Wikipedia is a site “to keep people informed about ongoing research projects” nor a database. I meant that someone may be interested also to this page, if he is looking for information related to this argument on Wikipedia… this is not substituting EU-databases (as “cordis”, which is in fact linked in the page), reporting different kind of information in a static way; the Wikipedia page may evolve and maybe be also the way to start new arguments as ISI (Inter System Interface), which is an ETSI standard completely not covered yet by Wikipedia (as well as TETRA broadband and PPDR networks). Just my opinion. --Pokas_it (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and let it meet the fastest-growing companies, hardest-working artists and most-insightful theories in the gigantic pile of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Tigraan (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colombe Benoît-Leclerc[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. Any information of value (Her name, age and country) is already present at both List of Canadian supercentenarians and List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V as no sources confirm she was the oldest living Canadian at the time of her death. CommanderLinx (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found it quite odd that Wikipedians are determined to always create a standalone article about every single person who actually reaches the age of 100, even if all we can actually write or source about them is "this person exist(s/ed)". I acknowledge that it's rare enough an achievement that we should maintain some information about it — but nom is completely correct that if this is the best we can do, then simply including her name in one or more lists of supercentenarians is entirely sufficient and a dedicated standalone biography is not necessary. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list entries are absolutely sufficient. Just growing old does not entail notability. Nothing else of interest here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chamblee-Tucker Road[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG; no independent reliable sources are present to attest to the notability of this road (and notability is not automatic with NHS status (was a contested PROD) Imzadi 1979 → 18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See my post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson Mill Road. Georgia guy (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no different from any other road in the world. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here to serve any level of notability. JodyB_talk 19:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Average suburban road. Dough 48 72 00:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Places of worship in Bangalore#Dargahs. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tawakkal Mastan Vali[edit]

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

NO references unnotable Summichum (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTABILITY WP:V. PhantomTech (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was recently stubbed by the nom. The previous version was quite a bit longer but still had no sources and has been tagged to that effect since 2012. Given the length of time and lack of improvement in the article I have no real disagreement with stubbing it. However I think a careful search should be made for sources before we send this article to the cyber shredder. The pre-stubbing version of the article made claims, that if true, would suggest that the subject should be notable. That said, I agree that three years is long enough. If no sources can be found then it's time for it to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTABILITY WP:V. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to locate any RS coverage in English. Sources might exist in Arabic or some other language and I will reconsider if any are presented. But this article has been unsourced for years. No sources = delete per GNG and V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Places of worship in Bangalore#Dargahs Additional possible references appear with a shorter version of the name - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). These confirm a connection with Hyder Ali but almost all seem to be for the dargah which Hyder Ali built for him and which has become a local place of pilgrimage and has sourced content at my suggested target. I suspect that the man himself might indeed be independently notable - but if so, I have no idea in what language and how old the sources might be. PWilkinson (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEMEnomics[edit]

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

Promotional article for Non notable pseudo science book. Worldcat shows in it only 97 libraries, which is utterly trivial for a book of in this field . The references are almost entirely to PR sites connected with the book or the author. The contents of the article is an over-detailed presentation of the "Spiral Dynamics" theory, for which see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral Dynamics. I have always supported the inclusion of straightforward explanatory articles on pseudoscience, because WP is the place for people to find objective information about anything weird of significance.But that's information Information, not promotion in in world context. And this particular self published book isn't even significant. The see also link to our more-than sufficient existing coverage of this general line of thought. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, crackpot spam. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMinded[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:WEB, apart from its owner. Site hasn't launched yet. Can't find any coverage of it online in WP:Reliable sources. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having an indication of notability. Maybe when it is launched it will be easier to establish notability, but it is not there yet. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cube (U.S. game show)[edit]

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

Television show does not exist. A pilot was taped in 2010, but the show never moved to production. Two sources to BuzzerBlog are dead links, and the other linked sources describe the pilot phase of the show, but no firm confirmation the program was green-lit. Google search returns no sources discussing production that are dated past 2010. AldezD (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The pilot was shot but the show never came to fruition, and thus the subject in question is not notable. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smashed WP:CRYSTAL; it's doubtful NPH is waiting by their phone waiting for a 13 episode order on this any longer. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neil Patrick Harris, the host of the show. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We usually don't redirect pilots to their hosts/principal actors; it was never picked up, and only the game show obsessives cared about the ultimate fate of this show. Nate • (chatter) 03:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then there is a stronger case for a keep. Also note that TV episodes are considered legitimate WP articles. I do not agree with that. Since that is the case, there is a good case for a keep if there is not a redirect. Please don't say "other crap exists" because when you have hundreds or thousands of TV episode articles, there is no way you can fight that. Conclusion: Redirect is the best, Keep is the second best, Delete is the worse, the very worse is delete and take it out of Wikipedia knowledge by not even having it on the Neil Patrick Harris page. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a television episode. The program does not exist. This was a pilot that was never picked up for broadcast. A television pilot does not meet WP:N, and a redirect for something that does not meet WP:N is unnecessary. AldezD (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wowee Zowee public was blocked for baiting editors into arguments, of which I assume they were trying to do here, so please disregard this !vote. In the meantime I'll add a short sentence about the pilot to the NPH article, which should be appropriate enough to fulfill how this show should be mentioned. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liberated Christians[edit]

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

Non-notable organization sourced only to the organization's website, unsourced claims of controversy, living people mentioned (though not by name, "founding couple"). Skyerise (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 16:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nine years were enough to get at least a stub with some reliable/notable references. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .... 9 years on and still no cite additions .... Clearly no evidence of notability and clearly fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought this would be a slam-dunk delete. It turns out this "not a church—not a swing club" has generated at least SOME sourcing (Phoenix New Times) that would count towards GNG. At least passing mention in BOOK What the Bible Says About Sex. It's a pretty close call, actually, but I feel this is short of the level of substantial independently published coverage we seek under GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, person or organization (creator of cards) with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China dream political poker[edit]

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

Unremarkable content, no references. smileguy91^{Need to talk?} 15:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Games[edit]

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

WP:Notability. Only told readers that the game exists and didn't add any information about the game's notability. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG--I was unable to find reliable sources for this video game. It also does not meet more specific guidelines such as WP:WEB and WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Shanata (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands. Merge: there is no harm in keeping this history. A related problem is 1001 Vrouwen uit de Nederlandse geschiedenis, which is little more than a summary of the subject with little referencing to show for its notability. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historici.nl[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Maybe someone with better linguistic skills can prove me wrong? Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have a strong bias in my google searches from using this particular website so much, but I have trouble understanding why you question the notability. What do you see when you google "dutch history resource historici.nl"?? I see tons of reliable sources, not all of them in Dutch, explaining the value of an open access history web portal like this one. Jane (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The resources hosted by this website seem notable to me, but I am yet unconvinced about the notability of the website itself. Apart from the mentions I can easily find, is there any in depth covering of the site by reliable and independent sources? – Editør (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this necessary? Surely a national institute is by nature notable in its own country. The English Wikipedia is not restricted to articles about national institutes in English speaking countries, surely? Jane (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the Huygens Institute is not being questioned here. The website doesn't inheret notability from the institute. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (web) for more information. – Editør (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having taken a closer look, I've noticed that the resources mentioned in the article are currently hosted at resources.huygens.knaw.nl and that the website historici.nl is supported by but independent of the Huygens Institute [15]. – Editør (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very observant of you! I didn't know that and only created the article as a courtesy when creating links to those resources - go ahead and redirect it to KNAW then. Jane (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 11:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website's not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Notability was not establisled. – Editør (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands. This looks to me like the Dutch equeivalent of the British resources hosted by the Institute of Historical Research. However, it is the resources and the host that are notable, much more than the website itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above: the resources mentioned in the article are currently hosted at resources.huygens.knaw.nl and the website historici.nl is supported by but independent of the Huygens Institute. Therefore, I oppose the merge. – Editør (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I am just confused: website not notable (Not OK), resources on website notable (OK), website of supporting institute (OK), redirect to supporting institute (Not OK) - you lost me! Jane (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain once more:
1. The page Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands should not be deleted, because the national institute is notable.
2. The page Historici.nl should be deleted, because its notability was not established.
3. The page Historici.nl should not redirect to an article about an independent institute. The information about the relationship between Historici.nl and the Huygens Institute as described on the page Historici.nl is either false or outdated. (source)
4. Information about the resources that are currently hosted on the website of the Huygens Institute could be added to the page Huygens Institute for the History of the Netherlands. The information that three of these resources are hosted on www.historici.nl as described on the page Historici.nl is false or outdated. The links are being redirected to an external website.
As far as I'm concerned this AfD nomination can be closed now. – Editør (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rally-Sport MS-DOS[edit]

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

WP:Notability, not covered by enough reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopeless stub. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There maybe some old computer mags that reviewed this game that might give it some notability. However if this game had any lasting significance you would think there would be a least some sources online beyond WP:ITEXISTS. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Lian Zhan Shi[edit]

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

WP:Notability. Not covered by any reliable sources significantly. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looking around for other sources "Honest and Upright Warrior" and "Qinglian Zhanshi" also turn up some results, but still not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename "Incorruptible Warrior", its English title (after the AfD ends). A sampling from LexisNexis:

"China puts faith in video game to spread anti-corruption message." The Irish Times. August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
"Cyberspace opens new front in war on graft." South China Morning Post. August 1, 2007 Wednesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
"Chinese whistleblowers rush to expose corruption." The Irish Times. December 20, 2007 Thursday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
"Chinese hunt corrupt officials - by computer." The Daily Telegraph (LONDON). August 3, 2007 Friday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.
"China's first anti-corruption online game shut down after less than a month." BBC Monitoring Asia Pacific - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring. August 28, 2007 Tuesday . Date Accessed: 2015/03/09. www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

which are all about the game, in depth. Ping me if you need to see them as a PDF. There are more sources on LexisNexis, too. This also doesn't include the WSJ and Reuters articles currently referenced in the WP article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118946475117723087
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/oukin-uk-china-corruption-idUKPEK22493320070828

All in all, should be more than enough to establish notability and to write a sizable article. czar ⨹ 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. The corresponding article on Chinese wiki is sourced.Antigng (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. There may be trouble ahead, but while there are citations to Zildjian's official website biography and Billboard, I think we can retain this and stay perfectly within WP:BLP policies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Thompson[edit]

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

This BLP is sourced either to unacceptable sources or local news. There's no obvious indication merely from the article that she merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Normally in itself that's not necessarily a reason for deletion; however, the subject has threatened legal action, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I think we should at least honour her request to not have a badly sourced biography. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I disagree that this is a "non-notable person" as defined in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The article needs to be improved and have some questionable sources replaced, but the bones of the article are sound, and the subject is notable enough to have an article. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 14:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I oppose deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as we have absolutely no evidence that the user who has disrupted and blanked this article is, in fact, the article's subject. Also, that policy only refers to non-public figures, whereas Thompson is clearly a public figure. Current sourcing of the article is somewhat weak, but one of the sources claims several Latin Grammy's for this artist. That information should be verifiable and would significantly add to the subject's notability. (I can't access the necessary websites through my work firewall, so I can't do the required verification myself at the moment.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like just one more attempt by one more celebrity to suppress knowledge of her age.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original edit by the person purporting to be the subject {?) was quite odd, e.g. adding "It's awesomely amazing for her that she's been known to taking a deep liking nature for teaching & working with children." + removing the year of birth referenced to The Savannah Morning News, . I suspect this is more a case of wanting to present herself a certain way and wanting the article deleted if that wasn't going to happen. I can't see anything in the current article that is damaging or a personal intrusion in any way. Let alone anything which remotely justifies her comment: "Whoever you ARE writing falsified information. I did NOT create this page about me YOU have. You are out of line and acting as ME and representing ME is illegal it's YOU who has vandalized such a situation and manipulated personal things of my life for your benefit.". As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this is a performing artist who has actively given interviews, press releases, performances at jazz festivals and at the Kennedy Center, album launches, etc.. She is definitely not a "non-public figure". Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the article and added some other sources. I didn't see the date of birth in the citation given so I took that out, but if somebody can point to a good quality reliable source containing it, it can go back in. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm prepared to believe that a combination of inexperience with Wikipedia, a lack of time and angry mastadon fear was to blame here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://savannahnow.com/features/jazzfest/performers.shtml looks quite sufficient for the year. The performance claims for the 2001 Sisters in Jazz Ensemble would correspond to that birthdate fairly well, so I see no reason to doubt it.—Kww(talk) 17:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also corresponds well with "She went to the Manhattan School of Music and received a Bachelor’s Degree in Jazz Performance and Composition in 2003, just four short years after graduating in 1999 from high school" from http://www.thenewsburner.com/2012/09/17/beyonces-drummer-kim-thompson-takes-her-career-to-a-whole-new-level-her-own/ .—Kww(talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XSquare[edit]

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

WP:Notability, not covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It did not have any meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (for any version of the app, including "Kids" and "Infinity"). There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 15:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't see anything, either. As far as I can tell, it hasn't gotten any professional reviews in reliable sources. Google results seem to consist nothing but spammy download sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Carnaval[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY, not covered by reliable sources. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A quick news search brings up some sources of which it's the main topic, but I don't believe that there's significant coverage and thus it fails WP:GNG. Pishcal — ♣ 14:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ugly stub, but there are several reviews from vetted video game sources including Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer, Slide to Play, 148Apps (and AppSpy), via Metacritic. Not a super strong case, but three reviews is usually the threshold, as there should be enough to write a decent article about the app. czar ⨹ 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eight reviews on Metacritic. That basically means notability is assured. Metacritic doesn't index blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but it's worth noting that Metacritic does index sites we consider less than reliable. The aforementioned sites are good, though. czar ⨹ 13:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giavelli[edit]

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

Article was prodded but a dissent on the talk page brings it here. The subject is not clearly notable and although there seems to be a single reference in a published book I do not think it is a reliable source to establish the term; may be nothing more than a self-created neologism. JodyB_talk 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism per WP:NEO. Like the nominator, I can't find any mention of it online outside of the single primary source cited. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as non-notable neologism. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mango Plumo[edit]

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

Not notable and don't have any "significant" coverage. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Only hits in a video game reliable sources search were listings. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹ 13:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Burroughs (elected official)[edit]

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

I don't think this one passes WP:POLITICIAN. Town and county level politicians are not normally considered notable enough for articles on Wikipedia. While he has been mentioned in a Washington Post article or two, the rest of the media coverage about him is also purely local level. His age at election might be a mitigating factor. Blueboar (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Members of boards of education are very rarely notable at this level. Members of state boards might be, but not county boards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. There must be 20,000 school board members in the USA. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procol Harum discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit of Nøkken[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS, no references, appears to have no news coverage. Pishcal — ♣ 14:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Redirect per Michig. Pishcal — ♣ 12:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums. Doesn't seem to have received much coverage, but no reason not to redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums. I don't see any coverage, either. In fact, there are almost no search results anywhere on Google. Redirect seems like the best result here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procol Harum discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MMX (Procol Harum album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 13:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS, not a single reference. Pishcal — ♣ 13:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums or delete. I don't see any evidence that it has received coverage in reliable sources. I guess not everything a famous band releases becomes notable. So, best thing to do right now is probably redirect to the discography. If reliable sources surface, then the article can be restored. It's unlikely anyone will ever do a search for this title, but this title might get linked from other articles. As a courtesy to readers, it might be good to give them somewhere to find minimal amounts of information, such as release date and charting information. But deletion is alright, too, if consensus is that the redirect isn't useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procol Harum discography#Live albums. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Eye to the Future – Live in Italy 2007[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums. May not have received enough coverage to justify an article but I see no reason not to redirect. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums. This is a little bit better than the other live albums, but there's still only around 65 hits on Google. It's indexed on a few sites, but that's about it. I don't see any professional reviews. Redirect seems best here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar ⨹ 19:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Union Chapel[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to incorporate the video release. This was released as a CD and DVD package and between them they received plenty of coverage. Coverage includes Derby Telegraph, Allmusic, PopMatters, Uncut, Penny Black. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was wondering where those search results came from, and then I realized that our article title seems to be missing a word. It's Live at the Union Chapel, not Live at Union Chapel. That should be fixed. But, yeah, those are enough to establish notability. I see quite a lot of hits for the correct title, and it even got a mention at CNET. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Procol Harum discography#Live albums. czar ⨹ 19:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One More Time – Live in Utrecht 1992[edit]

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

Does not appear to be quite notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Procol Harum discography#Live albums. Gets a trivial mention in this book. And I think there's a review at Allmusic listed in the article. But that's not really enough for an article. Searching for a shortened version of the title, One More Time, is problematic, as it's a very generic phrase. The full title might not be used often in reviews. So, it's possible that I missed a few reviews as I tried to make a search that avoided all the extraneous hits. Still, I don't really see any evidence of notability beyond the Allmusic review, and I tend to discount that as a signifier of notability; they review rather indiscriminately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:NinjaRobotPirate. No reason not to have a redirect even if the album doesn't justify a separate article. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't Nothin' to Get Excited About[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Procol Harum. Should at least get a mention in the Procol Harum article. I found these: [16], [17], [18]. If more can be found it might be keepable as a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was also a Village Voice piece about the album. And I also feel that the info sits better here, rather than trying to wedge it into the band article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Nelson (professor)[edit]

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

Appears very non-notable. Only 2 references, one of them being a book he wrote. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I believe the concept is notable but only one article is required for Search good, Experience good and Philip Nelson (professor).Jonpatterns (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Phillip Nelson (with two L's in Phillip) has written at least two hugely successful works, the "Information and consumer behavior" one already mentioned (5658 citations on Google scholar), and "Advertising as information" (3338 citations on Google scholar), enough both to pass WP:PROF#C1 and to avoid WP:BIO1E. Apparently he was Bartle Professor of Economics at SUNY Binghamton [19] so he also passes #C5. The article needs to be moved to a correctly spelled title. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahh, that makes much more sense now. Now that I am looking up "Phillip Nelson", I do see notability. Jcmcc450 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Just make sure somebody moves the article. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per [[User:David Eppstein].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music Tech Fest[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 21:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been edited to address issues raised by The Banner. The page will be further edited by other members of the wider community, but the page should stay on grounds of notability. Andrewdubber (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Andrewdubber (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then is should show the notability. For instance by telling how old the festival is (a long history is helpful), how many people show up etc. The present version is much better, but to my opinion still advertising in tone and style. The Banner talk 11:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. Will develop the history and work on the language a little more. Thanks for your help. Andrewdubber (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewdubber (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Preceeding "signature" was posted by User:Audiofeature on 15:12, 5 March 2015 in this diff. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Music Tech Fest is now supported by a EU Horizon 2020 project (MusicBricks) and will get further visibility throughout Europe through its activities in connecting artists, researchers and industry, with partners such as IRCAM and Fraunhofer Society participating in the project and collaborations with conferences such as New Interfaces for Musical Expression. It has had more than 2000 participants so far.

--Audiofeature (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Audiofeature (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page is very, uh, creatively structured and referenced, but the section on press coverage proves notability via reliable and significant third-party coverage. Earflaps (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks Earflaps. Further articles and external references to come. I just had a look through the shortcuts you make available on your user page. Those will be very useful as a reference to help our community to structure and reference the page somewhat 'less creatively'. Really helpful - thanks. Also tempted to jump into your List of electronic music festivals page - wondering if there's a place in there for something like Bent Festival (see Circuit bending)... Andrewdubber (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable, looks like it is shaping up, and the primary author seems to be learning how we do things here. I say give it time. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjan Shrestha[edit]

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

Autobiographical entry of a non-notable martial artist. I put quite a bit of effort to fix up and integrate the article into wiki but have been thwarted by constant removals of tags, categories and other mark-ups by the articles author/subject. Yes I am miffed and yes that probably affected my decision to bring to AfD even though notability was always in question (tagged by other editors). I have replaced the tags and mark-up one last time. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am more inclined towards delete since none of the events mentioned are acknowledged in WP:MMATIER. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair taekwando competitions would not be covered under WP:MMATIER which refer to professional mixed martial arts organizations.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter Rehse, I did try looking for a taekwando competition related rule but was unable to find one. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar SINGH I would use WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter Rehse, that is very kind of you. However, even that is not very precise. In any case, lets wait for the AfD results. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Competing at the youth Olympics is not a guarantee of notability. I could not find him ranked in the top 400 of any weight division by the WTF. He appears to have 0 rating points. I also didn't find the coverage necessary to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both GNG and MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject of the article obviously fails WP:MANOTE. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wish declined. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Spandidos[edit]

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

Prof. Demetrios A. Spandidos wishes the removal of this Wikipedia page for personal reasons Dtypaldos (talk) 07:55, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Sorry to go against the subject's wishes, but Spandidos is editor-in-chief of several academic journals in good standing, making him clearly notable under WP:ACADEMIC. In addition, according to GS he is very highly cited (h-index above 60), another clear meet of ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:OWN. PhantomTech (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article contains a very serious attack on Spandidos, sourced only to a brief Chicago Tribune article. This should either be removed, or better sourcing added, per WP:BLP. -- 120.17.0.168 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the next sentence shows Spandidos did nothing wrong so all together the paragraph is not an attack on Spandidos. That said, it might still be a BLP issue for Weinberg if it is improperly sourced. PhantomTech (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no doubt that Spendidos is notable, and unfortunately for him, there was more about the 1978 controversy than this Weinberg dispute, see this and this. The article therefore gets a weak keep from me, although it should be noted that it is very deficient and should be expanded to cover all aspects of his biography in WP:DUE weight. --PanchoS (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Benedict[edit]

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

This looks like a well referenced article on an academic. However, when you check the sources carefully, a very curious thing emerges. There are reliable independent sources about his parents, but the rest of it is sourced to his own work or his own biographical data (e.g. on his department website). There are no reliable independent sources about him, and as far as I can tell this has always been the case ever since the creation of the article. Virtually the entire thing is drawn from primary sources and independent evidence of significance is simply not provided. This is especially troubling given the current involvement of a single-purpose account determined to portray the subject in a certain light. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the current state of the article is of little relevance in determining this; the relevant guideline is WP:PROF. I don't quite know what profeseur honoraire means in terms of criterion 5, but the Google Scholar results, headlined by works of 187 and 120 citations respectively, suggests that the subject passes criterion 1. St Anselm (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - per StAnselm reasoning. ~~Also in this context I believe profeseur honoraire means something similar as a distinguished professor, meant to be translated as Honoured professor, so I think criterion 5 applies.~~ The article does need more independent sources however. — Strongjam (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Professeur honoraire", according to google-translate, is professor emeritus, which is also what our article here has always said. That's not intrinsically notable...usually just means he was a professor and then retired (no more or less notable than being a professor or similar rank). If he were indeed honored, it would be for some major accomplishment or contribution, which would have secondary sources for the bestowal of the honor and/or highlighting him and his contribution to...whatever. DMacks (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, I wasn't sure. I see know that he retired in 2015 so the emeritus makes sense. — Strongjam (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means emeritus professor. You know that WP:PROF is only a guideline indicating the kind of person who is likely to be covered by reliable independent sources, yes? At some point those reliable independent sources have to come forward. This article has never had one, but it has had a lot of edits from people who appear to have a close connection to the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Adam Duker article in footnote 13? St Anselm (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appearntly what Duker has to say about Benedict is that his line of thought is in opposition to ~~the mainstream views,~~ ~~ie fringe.~~ -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not clear from the WP article (which implies that Benedict is just approaching the subject from a different angle) but I have not read the journal article. St Anselm (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any lack of clarity about his work being fringe is a result of the involvement of the WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 06:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second view, he is published by Yale [20] and Oxford [21] so at least some of his views probably have academic credence.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see some news results here and here. St Anselm (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That second link identifies Benedict as:

"Philip Benedict, professeur à l’Institut d’histoire de la Réformation de Genève et spécialiste de Calvin,"
"Philip Benedict, Professor at the Institute of history of the Reformation in Geneva and specialist of Calvin," --machine translation
Matthew Mégevand (2012-03-14). "Why the Swiss don't want no more vacation?" (French-English).
--172.164.9.85 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's notability seems questionable. Much effort has gone into WP:LARDING the article. Given all the previous effort adding sources, there is either little of significance to add, or the contributors are carefully ignoring them. A brief history: The article was created by a now banned sock Adamduker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It was protected (log) as it was being edited by multiple IPs who were adding poorly sourced content. The article has been edited recently by a WP:SPA RefHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked recently for edit warring (WP:OWN?), but has not edited since the block expired. Perhaps WP:DENY is in order? Jim1138 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Benedict has won multiple academic prizes. He has published or co-edited 11 important books and countless articles. Jim1138 has not shown how any of this is puff on the talk page. I have defended the sources -- University Press books that acknowledge his teaching, independent university websites on two continents, articles, etc. Jim's "history" is off here. This article has existed for several years. Recently, Huon came on and deleted huge quantities after a fight with another user on a different page. RefHistory (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — RefHistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

what awards and where is the evidence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the awards appear to be

American Historical Association Guide to Historical Literature.^[1]
2003 Philip Schaff Prize from the American Society of Church History,^[2]
Phyllis Goodhart Gordan Prize from The Renaissance Society of America.^[3]

Are those awards at the level that establish notability? I haven't heard of either the awards or the granting institutions, but I am not familiar with renaissance scholarship. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Merely having published and taught does not make an academic notable, it sinply means they turned up to work. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but writing a history book that gets 187 citations involves more than just showing up at work. St Anselm (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A case of Single-purpose-accounts squeezing blood from the stones to make a subject appear more notable than they actually are. Actual, in-depth sourcing appears to be non-existent. Tarc (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, while the article has been subject to overly promotional editing, it appears that Benedict's works have been pretty widely cited and Oxford [22] published work he edited, so he appears to have some clout in the field. It seems possible that with care to the material and how it is presented, it could be possible to build an appropriate article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Norton, Mary Beth; Gerardi, Pamela, eds. (1995). The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 834. ISBN 978-0-19-505727-0.
^ "Former grant and prize winners". American Society of Church History. 2007. Archived from the original on 7 May 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
^ "Gordan Prize Winners". The Renaissance Society of America. Retrieved 19 January 2013.

Keep He was the William Prescott and Annie McClelland Smith Professor of History and Religion at Brown University for many years (until he retired) and professors with named and university chairs automatically pass WP:article. That's not to say that it's a good article (t's not) only that he is WP:Notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Held a named chair at a major university and was then a full professor (European universities don't have many named chairs) and director of an institute at another major university. Seems to me to meet WP:PROF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets WP:PROF in several ways (as explained by others above). Once PROF notability is established, primary sources to fill in biographical details and completely acceptable by long standing convention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching with the alternate spelling "Phil Benedict" may turn up some additional information, including: "Phil Benedict devised the reading course at Brown, and was the first to suggest the possibility of working on sermons." --Larissa Juliet Taylor (2002). Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France (Volume 14 of Renaissance Society of America reprint texts ed.). University of Toronto Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0802085573. ISSN 1711-5752.
--172.164.9.85 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (I am not any of the named users associated with this article, but have edited it under several IP numbers: 172.162.77.52 & next 2 edits, 172.164.2.28, 172.162.6.142.)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Toorkey[edit]

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

Unotable actor with just a couple roles. Wgolf (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I should add that it seems that he actually has just one role-next role says "unknown" wow great role! A redirect at best, still leaning towards delete though. Wgolf (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon at best, too little to meet WP:NACTOR. Cavarrone 06:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Conference of Reflexology[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE event. Deprodded by WP:SPA. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No RS. Pax 06:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Health[edit]

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

Lack of notability from independent reliable sources. Most if not all are press releases and primary source websites. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if this is an article or an advertisement... — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but rename and refocus. "West Health" - the overall umbrella organization - does not appear to be notable. (What the hell is an "independent, non-partisan ecosystem" anyhow?} But I think their subsidiary, West Health Institute, which is a "nonprofit medical research group",[23] may be notable. [24] [25] [26] Those are not the greatest sources - the Forbes ones are not by staff but by "contributors" - but I think more may be findable. If the decision is to keep and refocus, I will undertake the necessary rewriting - unless someone beats me to it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think it's an advertisement and would be willing to add in more/better sources. Will start now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omahaeditor5 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC) — Omahaeditor5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- Does not violate criteria for speedy deletion, does not qualify for Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. I disagree that it is an advertisement - they do not appear to be selling anything and they are not asking for money/funding (I think that's what independent, nonpartisan means). Company's work seems legitimate. Reason for notability seems to be four ways to change healthcare in the United States without making money. Could be improved for clarity and additional sources, especially in timeline section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35FA:D0B0:7185:A12E:757F:AE4A (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC) — 2602:306:35FA:D0B0:7185:A12E:757F:AE4A (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep -- Kinda wonky but not commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.70.11 (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — 209.134.70.11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - I had a search for sources and found quite a few press releases, but this and this seem to be independent coverage. However, that seems to be about the "Gary and Mary West Health Institute", which I'm not entirely sure is the same entity, though it looks like it is. It may involve a rewrite from scratch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- I made edits, deleteing references to incubator and investment fund, which don't seem notable. The non-profit medical research seems relevant Omahaeditor5 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck Omahaeditor5's second !vote. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Munchy's[edit]

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

The article contains a large amount of unsubstantiated information as well as a lot of promotional/advertising content Suannyip (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and improve/copy edit. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Grounded on reliable systems for smooth operations. Originally published in New Straits Times.
Building a good image. New Straits Times.
Munchy Food expands exports. New Straits Times.
Munchy eyeing European market following ISO 22000 certification. Originally published in The Star.
TheStar: Munchy’s does Malaysia proud. Marketing (magazine)

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CORPDEPTH per sources listed above by User:Northamerica1000. Cavarrone 10:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination lists issues that can be dealt with by editing but no valid reason for deletion. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Trails Publishing[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator - unlikely to get consensus one way or the other. Two good references are enough to support a stub/start level version. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Non-notable organisation, not much available outsuide the groups own website, and its affiliates The Shepherd's Garden, Missions for Truth. Fails WP:ORG and doesn't have the depth of coverage to meet WP:GNG Flat Out let's discuss it 05:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note a review of the sources cited finds the following:

[1] is an independent source.

[2] is published by the subject

[3] is another organisaton's defence to criticism and doesn't supprot notability of the subject

[4] is a passing mention only and doesn't support notability of the subject

[5], [6] and [7] are published by the subject and its affiliated organisations. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but fix dead links and cleanup - I'll see if I can't re-add some notable sources and find new ones for this article, it hasn't seen much life since I created it ages ago and most of the sources appear to have gone to link rot. However, if we are going to start deleting Christian Publishing companies due to lack of notability there's a ton of affected stubs in the same category (Category:Christian publishing companies]) that have even less notability. More than likely they just need some TLC from Project:Christianity, also keep in mind some of these companies have larger offline notability with their books vs. actual "in the news" presence. - Gaming4JC (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About other stubs in the same category that might be axed, WP:OTHERSTUFF. For notability, what matters is the presence of sources, not their intrinsic notability which none can guess. If the sun has an article, it is not because all people have observed it and found it reliable, it is because some of them have discussed it in sources.

None of this addresses the question of notability, though. Tigraan (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Gaming4JC (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG as at least 2 of the refs cited appear to be okay, the others don't seem to relate and/or look like PRs or from associated sites. a quick look at google shows up some more possible refs. although there is also info about Lighthouse Treehouse Research that appears to be a part of LTP, maybe this should be incorporated into the article? with regard to other christian publishers all for someone checking out afd possibilities:) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coolabahapple could you please nominate which 2 refs appear to be OK? Lighthouse Trails Publishing is most certainly affliated with The Shephered's Garden and Missions for Truth as it is stated in the body of the article. Thanks Flat Out let's discuss it 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

change to Delete initially thought christian news wire and christian post refs were ok, but on another look they are really just regurg of LHP pov. also on closer look at google search nothing usable so doesnt meet WP:GNG Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone interested, the writers guide with "citation needed" was listed with citation for both the 2011 and 2014 edition in my reverted edit.[27] ... Gaming4JC (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, fixed it myself per WP:BOLD. Citation needed tags are unnerving. ;) Gaming4JC (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references look fine for a small book publisher. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Çomment'- User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) most of the sources are the company website or organsiatiosn set up by the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy with the first two, which seem to me independent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Richard Arthur Norton's reasoning. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare in Washington (state)[edit]

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

This un-sourced stub seems to just be a collection of self-evident statements, such as "Washington has hospitals serving every part of the state." and "The Washington State Department of Health tracks the health of people there." There might be a rationale for keeping this article on the basis that it might eventually be expanded if there were similar articles for other U.S. states, i.e. "Healthcare in Illinois," "Healthcare in Oregon," but there doesn't appear to be. LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 01:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Should just be made into a disambiguation or redirected to Washington State Department of Health. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 11:17, 23 February 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, ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with noms rationale, the article as no content that describes how this is a notable topic. Not sure how it could become a notable topic in the future, as healthcare in Washington state would be very similar to the US as a whole. Mattg82 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roc & Mayne[edit]

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

Not sure if notable band. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:57, 23 February 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, ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't seem to meet WP:BAND. PhantomTech (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alien Sex Fiend. Nakon 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information Overload (album)[edit]

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

This does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 February 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, ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has not been reviewed, nor has it charted. Mattg82 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There a German-language review here, but I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. I'd be a little bit surprised if an Alien Sex Fiend album got zero reviews. I'm having trouble finding any, though. It gets mentioned in passing in a few interviews, but I guess that's not really enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the album does not have a sufficient amount of coverage nor has it charted. SilentDan (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even the people arguing for keep say the sources aren't there, so this has to be delete. If somebody finds sources, this can be restored to draft and worked on there. Not going to salt this based on what's happened to other articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guest House (2013 film)[edit]

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

I came across this via the AfD for Howling wolf productions. A look at the page shows that it's won awards at some minor film festivals, but none of them really seem like they'd be the type to warrant a keep on that basis alone. I also can't really find any reviews about the film that are in places that Wikipedia would really consider to be usable. The only one I found was one by the Santa Fe Film Festival, which showed the film and would thus be a primary source. I'm also somewhat concerned about the list of awards since the article asserts that it won the Best Short award at Santa Fe, but IMDb lists another film entirely as having won that award. I know that IMDb is not infalliable, but it also doesn't help that I can't really find anything to source this (the SFFF website doesn't have it listed on the film page) that isn't this Wikipedia article or something released by Howling Wolf themselves. I just don't see where this film is particularly noteworthy enough to really merit it having an article on Wikipedia. If anyone can find anything then that'd be great, but ultimately this just looks like it's a short film that won some awards at a few film festivals, but not at any that would really be considered to be overwhelmingly notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also concerning, but not really a reason to delete in and of itself are the sheer amount of SPAs that have been editing and creating Howling Wolf related articles on Wikipedia. I'm mentioning that more just so I can pre-emptively note that AfDs are not decided on a vote, but on a consensus based on policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, this will need to be salted given how frequently the articles for Aaron Wolf and Howling Wolf Productions were re-created, to the point where both required salting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: Am doing some looking, as it seems this short film and its awards have been spoken about briefly in reliable sources.[28][29][30][31] One might hope that the involvement of notables might show significant coverage to meet WP:NF, despite the SPA involvement. Will report back later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can save it, that'd be awesome. I'd rather keep it than delete it so we can have something to redirect some of the actor/director articles to since this is their biggest claim to fame so far. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelQSchmidt: - any update? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: Been busy in the real world. Will see what I can do over this weekend. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 04:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt: Have any luck, or should this go to the wayside? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per numerous awards. No the festivals are not as prestigious as Cannes or Sundance, but some are notable enough to themselves merit articles.. so that's something at least. The article is not a policy violation and, as we have no place where it might be merged or redirected, we can spend time digging for sources and continue improving it. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; despite promises, sources are not materializing. Can be undeleted if they show up. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with what is being said above, there does seem to be an issue with sources. As the nom pointed out, the only sources I can find are from here (Wikipedia) or are primary sources from Howling Wolf. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per MichaelQSchmidt. I agree the list of awards is rather significant, but would really like to see at least one good source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was something. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melapur[edit]

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

Non notable as per WP:Notability Vin09 (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable. PhantomTech (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Melapuram" and Keep. Google maps Pax 06:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done. Added reference too.--Vin09 (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav Singh Raizada[edit]

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

Fictional character who can be just redirected to the show its from. Wgolf (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?. Not enough material to sustain a split, and since the series has ended there is unlikely to much more written. The redirect could have been implemented even w/o an AFD unless there was explicit opposition to the action (didn't find any in article history and talk-page). Abecedare (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Abecedare. Unfortunately, once the article is on AfD, it cannot be WP:BOLDly redirected... Tigraan (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dayang Nurfaizah. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 04:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Di Pintu Syurga[edit]

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

Song that has no info that probably can be redirected to the singer. Wgolf (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dayang Nurfaizah, the singer's article. Article is a two line stub, and I can't find RS coverage to demonstrate notability (but maybe there's better in non-English sources?). Song does seem to have an audience, so redirect helpful to readers. If better sourcing can be found and article is built out a bit more, happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Burns[edit]

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

Delete: I know there are various similar articles about other murders of young men, mostly from Northern Ireland (Kearney, Evans, etc), but this one appears to have almost nothing particularly notable nor any nexus to larger issues like the other articles do to varying degrees. Quis separabit? 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it was an Óglaigh na hÉireann targeted killing makes it notable. Political and terrorism murders ought, in my opinion, to have articles whenever they can be reliably sourced. Adding sources, info now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad improvements, but not going to withdraw AFD yet, let's see if anyone else has any comments. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly more can be done. It is, for example, one of the cases discussed in Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism, Martyn Frampton [32], Irish Academic Press, 2011 - if anyone happens to have a copy. Is there some way to ask an editor expert in IRA terrorism to take a look at the page?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user Gregory.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per A7, as there was no credible claim of signifigance made in the article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bigyan Darshan[edit]

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

A 17-year old Nepali poet and social worker. No references are given except for a page that lists his poetry. Prod was removed with no refs added. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Person not notable and appears to be a case of WP:SPS. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not notable, autobiography by User:Bigyandarshan. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 09:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - conflict of interest, non-notable etc. but the relevant criterion for speedy deletion does not apply since it "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." See also WP:NOTCSD, #6. Tigraan (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wool E. Woola[edit]

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, self published, moonbow press set up by author. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The book looks cute, but unfortunately it just hasn't received any coverage to show where it passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. I am getting nothing on it. But it does look cute. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 11:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Children of the Red King. Consensus is to not keep as a standalone article but the merge indicates a redirect as User:Gene93k suggests. Michig (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venetia, Lucretia and Eustacia Yewbeam[edit]

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

not notable enough for a separate article, have moved relevent info to main article Children of the Red King Coolabahapple (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since content has been merged, the end action is to redirect, not delete. The redirect will preserve attribution history. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not notable enough for an article and an implausible redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd suggest a redirect to Children of the Red King, but nobody on God's green earth is going to type "Venetia, Lucretia and Eustacia Yewbeam" as that exact phrase into the search field. Pax 06:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of military disasters[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Filled with original research which as no place on Wikipedia. Who are we to decide what is or isn't a military disaster? The term is extremely subjective and almost always open to debate. Wikipedia is not the correct place for such a debate. ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists typically have clear inclusion criteria, and without exceptional sources I don't see how this article could be anything except OR. Pishcal — ♣ 05:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources available for this and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection:

Great Military Disasters: From Cannae to Stalingrad
Scottish Military Disasters
SNAFU: great American military disasters
World's Worst Military Disasters
Arrogant Armies: Great Military Disasters and the Generals Behind Them
Great Military Disasters
Britain's 20 Worst Military Disasters: From the Roman Conquest to the Fall of Singapore
Great Military Disasters: A Historical Survey of Military Incompetence
Military Misfortunes: The Anatomy of Failure in War
Military Blunders

The current list contains the usual notorious cases such as the Charge of the Light Brigade, Battle of the Little Bighorn and Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. Any borderline cases can be discussed and resolved by ordinary editing and the nomination doesn't actually list any. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. "Military disaster" (redirecting to this article) is a two-word phrase likely to be entered often as a search term, and a list like this represents an excellent staging point. Pax 13:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "military disaster" is of course purely subjective but we have many subjective terms on Wikipedia. The question is if there are reliable sources that describe events as a "military disaster" and that is no doubt. So we do have reliable sources that confirm. Also it's perfectly reasonable for editors to decide what to include or not, based on reliable sources. We are not robots, we do make editorial decisions with every edit. And debates can be had on talk pages. All normal Wikipedia activity. -- GreenC 14:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfectly legitimate subject for an article; any problems with the article should be solved through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the proviso that some actually referencing takes place to back up inclusion and attribution if it's to one book/historian. And that items on the list are plausible. eg Not sure how battle of Inchon, or operation Compass are "military disaster" as such. I assumed that a military disaster was a plan that went wrong due to unanticipated but foreseeable circumstances, not necessarily when one side is out-manuoeuvred or out-performed by a better equipped or disposed enemy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Krisel[edit]

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

Non-notable subject with unverified claims Kavdiamanju (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject appears to be notable and the information in the article is cited. Pishcal — ♣ 05:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was easy to find an extended treatment of the partnership's tract houses - focusing on Krisel's architecture - in a book. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable architect, [33] [34] Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arrow International[edit]

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

advertising, editor is too close to the subject Fuddle (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Advertisements masquerading as articles. Additionally, quite possibly created with a conflict of interest, but that is not a reason for deletion. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something related to ProSiebenSat.1 Media sounds very notable for me, but the article as is without any references and long boring enumerations of unclear items should be deleted first for a fresh start from scratch. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if source material can be mustered for a restart. Leave a redirect to ProSiebenSat.1 Media and the edit history, if possible. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice to a speedy renomination Davewild (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patuk Don[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this subject exists. Google returns no hits [35]. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to save this one; our coverage is very poor in this area. We don't appear to have an article on the king or his dynasty ... I found someone who has published articles online on Nepalese architecture and culture and republished them as a book, who calls it Patuk Deon. His source is a 1980 book by an Indian expert who says the local name is Patukadon. Both refer to it as a mound that is reputed to be the ruins of the palace but has not been archaeologically investigated. I have added both references and the info, but I find nothing else, including no hits on the Nepalese. What I've found does not justify an article, but I hope someone who can read Nepalese can do a proper search; it's entirely possible Google won't even show me such material. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 03:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Castillo F[edit]

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

Total failure of WP:DIRECTOR. Has been unpatrolled since January. Strange title, too. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Largely unreferenced BLP that fails Wikipedia:GNG, let alone Wikipedia:DIRECTOR. --The one that forgot (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miloslav Grolmus[edit]

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

Fails notability for tennis players see WP:NTENNIS Flat Out let's discuss it 00:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet wp:NTENNIS, and not notable as a coach. Fazzo29 (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosy Fonseca[edit]

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

Not sure about notability of this TV show host, unreferenced, and seems unotable as well. Wgolf (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a whiff of reliable source coverage that I could find through Google. Everymorning talk 03:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As an apparent GNG failure. Very poor unsourced stub article. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up Pakistan[edit]

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

Submitting simply on the strength of the sources, which appear to be entirely a number of self-published sources on free hosting services. Google search turns nothing else up in English. Ergo, posit that this fails WP:GNG. Dolescum (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly WP:SELFPUB and also WP:COI. Article more inclined towards Muhammad Talha Fareed Chishti than anything else. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and likely A7 candidate. Pax 06:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: copy-vio speedy tagged. Pax 05:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the lack of coverage in reliable sources does not appear to be notable. Davewild (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatantly promotional, vanity page and unsourced puffery. Cavarrone 06:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Joseph Smith's wives. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer Smith[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines, relies on primary sources, basically inherited notability through marriage. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I think the page should be redirected to List of Joseph Smith's wives. However, ultimately I don't object to it's deletion as I have copied what information that is relevant to Desdemona into that page already as I was planning a merge anyway.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 02:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the wives article, per above. Pax 06:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree with others supporting redirect. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate at draft space, early close per move to draft space (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Kendrick Lamar studio album[edit]

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

Album untitled; maybe it should be placed in "Draft" status until released and/or a title is known. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it shouldn't get removed, as one for Slayer is there as well. I think it should be placed in "Draft" as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable. Of his 4 books, the one most widely held is in only 32 libraries a/c/ worldcat, despite being published by a major publisher. The others are self published by his own company. His awards are minor--regional only, and none of them first place. He owns no notable company, nor is he ceo of any,nor has he started any.

Despite what the lede says, he did not sell the MCC for $500. According to the text of the article and the references, what he sold was pieces of its old removed carpeting.

The refs, as expected, are straight PR. We don't have to add to that., DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and DGG. Pax 07:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; torn down or renovated stadiums sell off old infrastructure all the time through their teams; the only difference here was MCG licensed this guy to sell it rather than going direct. Anyone could do that. Nate • (chatter) 15:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck (1996 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: I cannot find reliable sources covering this film. Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I'm dealing with enough Wiki-nonsense right now. There was nothing there, I put something there, if you don't like it, go back to nothing.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Reviews in The New York Times [36], Los Angeles Times [37], People [38] and Variety [39] are easily sufficient to establish notability for this film. These were readily found in a couple of minutes by a simple Google search using the names of the two stars and the film's title. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further sources *easily* found from a Google search: Ability magazine, EW, Mademoiselle, and a few books: [40], [41], [42]. --Michig (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:NFSOURCES with ease. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Ireland[edit]

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

This is a straightforward WP:TWODABS violation. There are two links on the page, but only one of them can actually be called a list of World Heritage Sites in Ireland; the other proposed topic, the Giant's Causeway, is not a list at all. It can be noted in a hatnote in List of World Heritage Sites in the Republic of Ireland, but in no sense is the use "List of World Heritage Sites in Ireland" a title match for Giant's Causeway. At best, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of disambiguation pages, to index pages with matching titles. bd2412 T 00:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, the page has been refactored, and is no longer a dab. bd2412 T 01:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 elections in India[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The central and state legislatures in India don't have a rigid fixed term, and early elections can and are called under many circumstances;and elections can be delayed under other circumstances (such as President's rule). As such it is impossible to know yet if parliamentary elections will be held in 2016, and which state legislatures will go the polls (we only know which legislative terms are scheduled to end, but are not in the business of making predictions from that knowledge). AFAIK the Election Commission of India hasn't announced any election schedule for 2016 yet. Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in India. Shall be created in next few months. Fundarise (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be written in future (if necessary) on actual event. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and recreate once there is some hard information backed by reliable sources, late this year or next year. Davewild (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ REDIRECT. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I misread the bottom !vote - No objections to anyone reverting the redirect providing it's expanded obviously. –Davey2010^Talk 03:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Condiment market in the United States[edit]

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

I can't see why this aricle needs to be here. Not part of a series on condiments by country, not much content, only one citation. Not a particularly well-defined topic, either. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Another option is to merge it to Condiment, since the article is rather short. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. Here we have an article whose total text is shorter than the category template pasted at the bottom. It says nothing that cannot be said in Condiment. What it does do is promise more articles on condiment marketing - one for every nation - joy! Pax 13:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect for now. Can always be split out again should it grow. -Arb. (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – The article is a superstub right now, but I wonder how long it could become if relevant sources are used to expand it. T C N7JM 15:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Literary Review India[edit]

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

No indication of any notability. Article creation too soon. Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sparse cites on GS, almost all of which were pieces from the magazine itself. Similarly, on Google it appeared in lists of publications where authors' work had appeared. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Margin1522; no independent RS. Pax 07:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Userfy to User:Nakon/Identifier Network. Please contact me if you would like the page moved to your userspace instead. Nakon 22:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identifier Network[edit]

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

Non-notable research. This page, a (rather crude, sorry for that) merger of a slew of pages by the same author, is a summary of some kind of network design published in three papers in Acta Electronica Sinica (cited as Chinese Journal of Electronics in the article). One of these papers has 75 citations on GScholar, but many of those are self-citations and none of the citing papers has had any measurable impact, as far as I can tell. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may, I'd like to nominate Resolution Mapping of SID, Resolution Mapping of AID and all the redirects to this page at the same time. If the main topic is not notable, neither are those. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable self promotion. Agree that other 8 redirects that point to this one should also go if this one is deleted as they are all subsets of the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless author can demonstrate the concept has gained significant attention from independent parties.TheBlueCanoe 13:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy ~~Delete~~ – Appears to be a genuine research project that has attracted some attention in the field, but this is way too technical for Wikipedia. ~~Theoretical and better left to the technical journals.~~ – Margin1522 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Sorry, I !voted before looking at the history of this article. Now I'm a bit concerned whether it is being given a fair chance. In (this dif) Flat Out reduced the original 4500-char article to a two-sentence stub, on the grounds that it was original research. This was about three hours after article creation. By about an hour later, Qwertyus had merged the technical details from the other articles and proposed it all for deletion. It was never tagged for notability, the author was given no chance to improve it, and as it stands the technical details are incomprehensible. Hence my !vote that it was too technical. But the overview wasn't too technical, and if I had seen that I would have !voted differently. I still think it's a delete, since there is no evidence of impact in the field of pervasive network architectures. The author may not have realized that we require cites from third-party reliable sources. Many new editors don't, especially academics. So what I would like to propose it that the overview be restored and the author notified that we need evidence for notability, with an explanation of what notability means on Wikipedia. I'd also like to ask the closer not to delete this too soon. At least not until the author has been given some more time to improve it. Right now I'm leaning toward changing my !vote to userfy. – Margin1522 (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  @Margin1522: I hadn't seen that edit by Flat Out. I restored the missing content (without the overt promotion of the topic), but it don't find this address my concern. I'm fine with userfication instead of deletion. (And a merger would have to be done anyway; it's no use having ~8 articles all discussing the same research project.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So I will change my !vote to userfy. If that is the outcome, I will volunteer to explain our notability and OR policies to the author. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the editor created 8 articles using the same 3 sources regardless of what was in the articles and it really is a pile of original research. Happy to support userfication. Flat Out let's discuss it 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indonesian Railway Operation Areas and Regional Divisions[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTESAL, cannot find any evidence that it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointless article, No improvements have been made in 4 years which I assume because it's simply a non-notable list ..... Anyway fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit (SA band)[edit]

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

Unremarkable band with no claim of notability or discoverable sources to satisfy WP:BAND. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the claim that they reached #1 in the SA charts might confer notability, I can find no reliable evidence of it other than this (which I'm not convinced is a reliable source as per WP:RS). There's a confusing source for the album here, which says it was released in Greece in 2007. All in all, I can find no sources to verify notability. Squinge (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The source that supports their No.1 sport for 7 weeks was published by their agent/management by the looks of things and is therefore of dubious reliability. If they had achieved this accolade one might expect to find more coverage of them on the internet. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 02:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established and chart claim fails verification. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Norton, Mary Beth; Gerardi, Pamela, eds. (1995). The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 834. ISBN 978-0-19-505727-0.

[2] "Former grant and prize winners". American Society of Church History. 2007. Archived from the original on 7 May 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2013.

[3] "Gordan Prize Winners". The Renaissance Society of America. Retrieved 19 January 2013.

[1]

[2]

[3]