Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oridus[edit]

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

Barely no coverage whatsoever. Fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches including News, Books provided nothing and Highbeam and thefreelibrary found some results but nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as based almost entirely on press releases and other non-independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sci-Fi SKANE. Given the concerns expressed here, the simplest thing to do is redirect this to the band; please re-nominate the band's article for deletion if you believe they are not notable either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Känslan av att jorden krymper växer[edit]

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

Album with no notability to be found-the band also seems to have no notability as well. Wgolf (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an obvious redirect to Sci-Fi SKANE but it's pointless to have an AfD about it if we don't know whether Sci-Fi SKANE is notable or not. Strongly suggest withdrawing the nomination and focusing on whether the band is relevant or not. Peter ^Isotalo 09:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well usually I just do a redirect for stuff like this-but was unsure about the band to be honest...(Besides there are tons of other albums I've seen afd like this that I usually just say redirect too), I'll wait for other inputs. Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleta and redirect - all of the information already exists in the article Sci-Fi SKANE as well. /FredrikT (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthem Publishing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music Tech (magazine)[edit]

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

No evidence for notability Ref 1 is a bookdealer's listing, ref 2 a mere mention DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthem Publishing where it is listed. Although it looks like the publishing parent's article needs improvement as well, searches with "Music Tech magazine" found nothing until adding "Anthem Publishing" and providing these results here here, here and here. Nothing exactly significant but enough to show it has gotten more attention through the parent rather than by itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Anthem Publishing. The magazine certainly exists and you can buy it on the High Street (or at least you used to be able to) but I've been unable to find anything much beyond just basic mentions and some blurb in books talking about regular author's credentials. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Karger[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced vanity biography. The only source that lends to notability is the Boston Business Journal article. Fails WP:BASIC. A couple of sources mention his name in passing and the rest are closely connected sources or otherwise unreliable. - Mr X 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, he's simply not notable with News, Books, a passing browser search, highbeam and thefreelibrary providing nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karger - these should have been linked into one AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: there's no evidence of notability here Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Karger[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced vanity biography. The only source that lends to notability is the Boston Business Journal article. Fails WP:BASIC. A couple of sources mention his name in passing and the rest are closely connected sources or otherwise unreliable. - Mr X 22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article previously existed, moved to Draft:Paul Karger at author's request, where it has been declined once already. This version is nearly identical to the draft, but by a different author. Crow^Caw 22:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wesley Karger/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Karger. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search for Wesley found nothing and a search for Paul found a little more but nothing significant as well. Simply not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' 'upcoming' awards are a classic sign of WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Rawcliffe[edit]

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

I approved this article at AFC, but now have doubts about whether she is notable. The Emmy award on which I based my approval is not a real Emmy but an Emmy from the San Francisco / Northern California Emmy Awards. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good catch on the "Emmy". Since there is no substantial coverage independent of the subject (provided or found) and the Emmy is not a significant award, notability is not established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I discovered this via one of the articles at AfC, for one of her films. The Telly Awards are meaningless as far as Wikipedia is concerned because they're vanity awards. Essentially they're a "pay to play" operation where you get an award because you paid for one- see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Award. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that a regional Emmy could be the type of thing that could give some notability, but it's most certainly not the same thing as the Emmy that covers the entire nation. None of her films have received any coverage in independent and reliable sources and the only other claim to fame are the Telly Awards, which are nothing more than vanity awards and as such, cannot show any notability on Wikipedia. (Even if the awards weren't already considered unusable for multiple reasons, the fact that she works with the Telly Awards would put their usability into doubt.) There really isn't anything out there to show that she passes notability guidelines. I suppose that this could be sent back to AfC if there's genuine interest in someone continuing to monitor the article to see if any future sourcing becomes available, but I honestly doubt that she'll pass notability guidelines any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Halus[edit]

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

Non-notable person. One teacher (director of school) like many other. In the same situation are articles about:

Eleonora Cercavschi
Maria Ungureanu
Maria Roibu

The fact they received Order of the Republic of Moldova does not make them notably. XXN, 21:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All articles created by single user. Impossible to verify any kind of notability from English language sources. Surprised this didn't find it's way to AfD earlier. NickCT (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none meet GNG. FYI NickCT just a reminder, availability of sources in English should never be considered; it's pretty easy to find them mentioned in Romanian-language articles, but not as the subject. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: - We all know the only truly reliable sources are written in English. It is the language the bible is wrtitten in after all. NickCT (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Pea[edit]

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

I don't believe that this murder is notable (WP:N) because it seems to be a run-of-the-mill murder case with no lasting impact or special importance. Additionally, while there are a couple scans of newspaper pages on Facebook that lead me to believe this is not a hoax, I can find no online sources regarding the killer's identity and am somewhat uncomfortable with putting leaving this up for the world to see without additional eyes on it. There is almost zero google presence for this crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~agree that this is likely a non-notable murder, also almost all of the sources cited can't be verified.~~ Flat Out talk to me 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep now that scanned versions of the articles have been placed online. Flat Out talk to me 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - plenty of reliable independent sources. Clearly a murder which received plenty of attention at the time. Simply because a case drops out of the media is NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - References don't link to any reliable independent sources, just text references. Facebook is most always not a reliable sources, except on very rare occasions. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB does have a good point. Offline sources can always be used as references. I am changing my vote to neutral. However, Facebook and Word Press links still should be removed because they are generally not reliable sources (except on rare occasion). CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Claims that the sources can't be verified or don't exist are simply not true. Offline references include the The West Australian, Sunday Independent, and Daily News. There is no requirement that sources be published online to count, which is what is implied by CookieMonster & Flat Out. Indeed the author has taken the time to scan the newspaper articles which is what all the links at the end of the references section are.

This looks like a case of systematic bias against older material. If the case was in the news today, I doubt anyone would question the notability. The case was covered by multiple papers over several years which moves it beyond a routine murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment the scanned versions of sources were not available at the time I voted and have changed my vote accordingly. I am aware that online versions are not a requirement however they are helpful in verifying that content matches the source and to understand the context of the event. Flat Out talk to me 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sustained in-depth coverage over a period of years. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A7. Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corollet[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this software. —teb728 t c 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Multiple searches at News, Books, a passing browser search, Highbeam and thefreelibrary all found nothing. The only closest thing was IBM Corolet diagram. Simply not notable, SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Inculet[edit]

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

Appears to be NN individual lacking not-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I declined this as an WP:A7 speedy deletion because there was some assertion of notability.

Delete - Even though I declined the speedy, this article does not provide any WP:RS to substantiate any assertion of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, multiple searches at News, Books, Scholar (precautionary in case of results), Highbeam and the freelibrary found nothing aside this (which must be her considering it says Canada). A passing browser search found an obituary but not helpful at all so there's not one significant source to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see two results for "Catherine Inculet" in GBooks, Canada on Stage (two castlists) and Canadian Author & Bookman, and two more for "Inculet, Catherine", Canadian Theatre Review Yearbook (pp 308, 309) and The Canadian Law List. There may be more for initials, and because Google has problems with speech marks in search terms. James500 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Catherine was afraid of the Internet and tried to be off it as much as possible, thus not very much is accredited to her. Just because you found nothing of note there, the fact that she was Chairman of two City of London committees and a founder of the London Arts Council and has one book of poetry published should make her Notable enough for Wikipedia. Have you seen some of the poet and author profiles on here, some are one or two sentences long or a short paragraph and have less notability. I have been working on here since 2007. I apologize if I didn't make the article less bias and in the third person neutral, I tried. Wouldn't it be nice if we helped each other out with positive suggestions as to editing and search for references and notability things instead of just deleting things because we never heard of someone? Keep. Haiku Tea (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but unfortunately those sources are very important. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Memorial page for a woman obviously valued by her friends. Because obituaries are a pretty good guide to notability, I searched the local papers, the London Free Press, London Community News, The Londoner. Found none. A chapbook while it is an accomplishment, is not an indication of notability since I could find no mentions of it in RS. WP:NOTMEMORIAL the haunting irony here is the name of her chapbook of poetry: She Left No Footprint.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Further discussions of merge to Bengali cuisine or another target can take place on the talk pages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cuisine[edit]

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

This article is badly written and only cites one source, and only copy-paste or close paraphrasing. Also the purpose of this article can be served by Bengali cuisine. Fazbear7891 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - merge to Bengali cuisine may be WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bengali cuisine. this is what i'm thinking. either delete Bangladeshi cuisine or merge it. Fazbear7891 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Bengali cuisine - No doubt about it Bengali cuisine is long but I'd rather see it Merged than deleted and personally Bangladeshi_cuisine& seems better off in the cuisine article anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've just realized I somehow ended up at the wrong article as whatever article I had up had 4 lines & 1 cite .... I dunno!, Anyway the article looks notable judging by the sources and seems to pass GNG, Merging is pointless as they're 2 different things in that respect. –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable topic. The readable prose size of Bengali cuisine is already at 51kB (and the article is certainly large), and the article would meet or exceed the usual guideline of "probable division" if merged, at 60kB. The scope of the topic is not large, so it should stay split and maybe create a standalone article on West Bengal cuisine. If the article can be shortened by removing redundancies or just shortening unnecessary parts, then merge, but else keep. Esquivalience ^t 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic; article has been around since 2005. However, it looks like someone copy/pasted entire content from another website in 2012; web archive shows that content being around since at least 2011. I'm going to look closer and possibly revert to an earlier version. Nevermind, web archive of that site actually only goes to 2013; and the style of the first sentence "Subject (native language term of that subject) ..." is very WP. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - Notable topic per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. Falls under cuisines of sovereign states. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bengali cuisine, since they seem to be the same thing and the other article is better. Borock (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 My Babysitter's a Vampire. discarding non policy based votes shows we have an actor whose time has yet to come. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Kennedy[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, basically best known for My Babysitter's a Vampire, to which multiple Google News searches provide nothing aside from one search "Cameron Kennedy My Babysitter's a Vampire" (another search provided a Toronto Sun version of the first article). His IMDb page basically sums and this article hardly has good information and references. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His article claims he has a "main role" in My Babysitter's a Vampire TV series and movie, but the TV series article indicates his character is more of a second banana to the three main ones. Even if he were, that wouldn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He had credited main roles (opinions about what constitutes a main role don't override how he is actually credited) in a movie and two seasons of a television series. That is sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." requirements. The article has been on wiki since 2011 and has accurate info about this actor useful and informative to readers. It is not necessary to remove this one now just because it is marginal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the significant roles in multiple notable films? Even his article admits to only one non-minor film role in My Babysitter's a Vampire, a TV movie that is neither notable nor multiple. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple is for total works so at least 2 notable roles, his film, and the TV series (taking multiple to mean more than one). 3 if you count each season of the TV series. Notable film and TV series as demonstrated by articles existing in wiki. This is an edge case here but I think squeaks over the line to keep it particularly since the article has been here for 4ish years. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a notable film, period. And citing WP:USEFUL and trying to stretch a series out by seasons are signs of desperation. Being overlooked for "4ish years" doesn't boost his case either; hoaxes have routinely remained undetected longer than that (not that I'm calling him a hoax, just unnotable). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the film is not notable then it too should be nominated for deletion per WP:NFILM. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When the TV Film aired it received 4.8 mil viewers. I would consider that significant. It and the show then went on to air on two major TV networks and go onto Netflix. He also has a significant social media following and vlogging success. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1B80:1317:2471:32B7:829:D9A0 (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:7:1B80:1317:2471:32B7:829:D9A0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Notability is not inherited. The number of viewers a show had has no bearing on whether the actors in the show qualify for Wikipedia articles or not. It's reliable source coverage, in which the actor is the subject of the coverage, that gets a person into Wikipedia, not how many people did or didn't watch the show. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he has such a "significant" following, where are the fawning articles in publications? (sound of [vampire] crickets). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Babysitter's a Vampire as the only significant role and a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not notable, per above. The guidelines are vague about what constitutes a "significant role" but his role in My Babysitter's a Vampire is marginal depending on your definition, and claiming he's in multiple works is also questionable. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or other standards. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to My Babysitter's a Vampire. The necessary volume of reliable source coverage about him is lacking, and the number of viewers that a show got is not a notability freebie that exempts any of the actors in the show from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As of May 2015 he has approximately 21.9k Twitter followers. ^[1] He has almost 5,000 Youtube subscribers. ^[2] He also has an online fan club, albeit small. ^[3] There are media articles about him. ^[4] While he may not have the largest of followings, there is still one there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1B80:1317:2471:32B7:829:D9A0 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:7:1B80:1317:2471:32B7:829:D9A0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No number of social networking followers has anything to do with Wikipedia's inclusion standards. An article lives or dies on the volume of reliable source coverage that's available to support one, and not on raw numbers of subscribers on any social media platform. Not Twitter, not Facebook, not Tumblr, not YouTube — it's reliable source coverage in real media or nothing, and the FreshTV article you provided isn't a reliable source either. And while you're allowed to comment more than once in an AFD discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once — so the "keep" at the beginning of this followup comment has been struck out. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 11 May 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 // 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the basis of not only the significance of the MBAV film/TV series, but he is still an actor, who has more than just MBAV listed for credits, it's just his longest running work. He recently filmed a short last year that's not even listed on here. This page needs more extensive research instead of being deleted. PaulaSVU (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What it needs is reliable source coverage in which he's the subject — an actor can have over a thousand roles in film and TV over the course of his career without qualifying for a Wikipedia article if RS coverage of his work as an actor is lacking. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cadena de Pecados[edit]

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

The article was created a year ago, and the telenovela is not released so far. Nor does it have references. Philip J Fry • (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Safiel (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now - A News search here found one link and a browser search found others but nothing explicitly significant and frankly this has spanned too long and still no serious sign; this here says it will begin in 2015 Mondays-Fridays at 8PM but no exact date when it starts airing. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt_Zimmerman_(technologist)[edit]

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

Completely non-notable. Only source is of a Google Plus page. Fails WP:BLP. Moreover it's an auto-bio per WP:WWA Doublefrog (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doublefrog has been blocked indef as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 6 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet GNG. There are lots of mentions in articles about Ubuntu, but not even a redirect is appropriate as there are references to him leaving. FYI @Epeefleche: I don't think Doublefrog being a sockpuppet or not affects this afd. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it affects the AfD. As the sockpuppet is not an editor in good standing, but rather an indef blocked editor, his !vote has zero weight. Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's required to be an "editor in good standing" to propose an AfD, which are decided based on consensus. I don't think you even need to have an account to create an AfD. The problem with socks is if they are used to create a false consensus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?? And what, pray tell, is the basis for you "not thinking" that? Just a hunch? A feeling? Nothing based on ... say ... a guideline? If your thought process is that non-Wikipedians (and an indef blocked editor is clearly not a Wikipedian ... he has none of the rights of a Wikipedian) can !vote at and take part in an AfD, then you haven't bothered to read very far into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. For example -- say -- the very first sentence. Only Wikipedians are allowed to be part of the AfD discussion. Not indef blocked users, such as this one. And he was one and the same as an already indef blocked user at the time of his creation of this page, and his !vote. Edits by an indef blocked editor of on his behalf during his block may generally be reverted without question (and in fact any pages where the blocked editor is both the page's creator and the only substantial contributor (no longer the case here) may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5. Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and my own philosophy of not being a pretentious twat. Above all the goal is to improve Wikipedia, (see WP:IAR); what does it matter who does it? If the worst all-time troll fixes a typo, is it somehow a less valuable contribution than if someone else did it? Should it be reverted because of who did it? I would hope not. I don't see why AfD is any different, especially because WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Mere votes don't matter. So whether someone with one account or 5,000 accounts suggested Matt Zimmerman for deletion, I couldn't care less. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" does not mean "sockpuppets can edit Wikipedia." I would think that would be obvious. Whether or not you are a twat, and whether or not you are pretentious. And IAR does not mean "I can ignore any rule IDONTLIKE." As the guideline I pointed you to, AfD is not open to one or more sockpuppets !voting ... their !votes simply don't count. The rule is the same here for one sockpuppet, or two, or ten. And, as we seek to close discussions on consensus (of wikipedians), it does matter if 5,000 sockpuppets were to !vote at this AfD. And, likewise, one. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Nick Griffin[edit]

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

I don't really see the point of this page. The article on Nick Griffin includes a section with an entry for all of the elections he has contested. Each of these entries links to the relevant constituency/election in which he participated, from which the tables of results have been lifted wholesale to appear in this article. Smacks of repetition for no apparent use. Emeraude (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The point seems to be to rub in the fact that he has never done well in an election, which is already made clear in his own article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the point is more to show what a fine electioneering man he is, which is very far from clear! Emeraude (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These articles are common and serve an important purpose of placing the electoral history in a concise way. He did win election once for the European Parliament anyway. AusLondonder (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, they are not common at all. Neither is it concise - the elections contested table on his article is concise. So he won an election. So what? He lost nine others. Emeraude (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While these "electoral history of..." articles are not entirely unheard of, they are not nearly as common as AusLondoner claims — they exist only for a very rarefied tier of elite political figures, such as presidents and prime ministers, whose articles are extremely long and need the spinoffs for size management purposes. They do not exist for most legislators, leaders of fringe parties, or other "lesser" figures — for the vast majority of politicians, their electoral history is maintained in the biographical article itself and not in a separate spinoff, and Griffin is not a major enough figure (nor is his BLP so very massive) to earn the special treatment. Delete and/or redirect to Nick Griffin. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - while there is a Category:Electoral history of British politicians, I agree it should be reserved for prime ministers and not just party leaders. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to merge. Not successful or important enough to merit a separate results article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhartiyavidya[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY, although it survived a 2006 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike what the article appears to suggest Bharatiyavidya is not some traditional "Indian teaching system". It is, roughly speaking, multimedia educational content created by JIL Information Technology Ltd. and designed to be shown in regular classrooms. From all appearances the product never took off and is possibly long defunct, with only the company website that hasn't been updated in nine years remaining. No independent sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Should have been deleted years ago and can be safely deleted now. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not establish notability when I tagged this in August 2014. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the analysis of Abecedare fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT lacks sources with even the company website not updated regularly.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Delaney[edit]

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

He is simply not notable. An unsourced BLP for more than 4 years (there is a source included but it isn't working). The only significant coverage I could find is his own writing, a Twitter account, a blog and this entry on Wikipedia (none of these are independent of the subject). Does not meet WP:BIO. Greykit (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - While I don't doubt that this AFD was begun in good faith, fact is that with the Irish, you have to use a news archive that does a better job on Irish and British papers from a decade ago - I used Proquest. Now the only problem is wading through the plethora of substantive coverage. The fact that it was unsourced for so long may indicate many things other than lack of notability, such as lack of editors in Ireland, lack of editors who agree with Delaney's politics, lack of Wikipedia editors working to source older articles....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as unsourced BLP. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the issue at AFD is not whether an article is sourced (it is proper to bring an unsourced article to AFD) but once here the issue is whether sources exist that could support notability for the topic, making Nha Trang's comment useless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here [1] a profile in the Irish Independent which, according to a wikipedia is the largest circulation newspaper in Ireland. And this [2] from Village (magazine) appears to show that at least some in Ireland take his writing seriously. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The first is in the paper for which he regularly writes columns like this, this and this. "Independent of the subject" is problematic here. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
(2) The second focuses on the sculptor Edward Delaney. Of nearly 10,000 characters only the following mentions an "Eamon Delaney" as being a relative: "Eamon Delaney in ‘Breaking the Mould’, a lengthy paean to his father Edward Delaney, not surprisingly supports Murray [...] Eamon Delaney lauds his father’s ‘Davis’ as superior to works by John Henry Foley." This, as stated previously, is evidently not enough for WP:BIO. --Greykit (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article is an art critique that fairly extensively engages Eamon (fils)' assessments of Edward (pere)'s sculpture. Eamon wrote an entire book about his famous (in Ireland) sculptor father.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pretty tough on Irish writers to exclude profiles from the Independent on grounds that they sometimes write for it. Is he regular staff, or an occasional?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Twitter account suggests he is a columnist for its Sunday edition. Again, this calls into question anything from that publication in relation to the notability guideline at WP:BIO which calls for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". --Greykit (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take you point; I'll source him to Haaretz. Seriously, I did (improbably) source him to Haaretz, but I think we should keep articles from both the Independent and the Irish Times (where he has also published articles), adding that he writes (has written?) for these papers. Should we write this each time we refer to the paper? Once in the article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also sourced him to Irish Examiner, where he doesn't appear to have written. this completes the leading Irish papers (didn't check the tabloids);-) E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greykit I don't have a dog in this fight. This one looked plausible, as in, can a guy with a diplomatic career & 3 books truly have no RS? So I took a swing at sourcing him. Taking a closer look now. I still suspect that he's real, so I'll stick what I find on the page and report back. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting back. There are now multiple sources on the page. There's more to add, but what its there will, I believe, suffice to establish notability. Note that the Irish Times, a publication for which Delaney has written, lists one of his books at the top of a 2013 bestseller list (paperbacks, nonfiction).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greykit Truth is, it took a minute to find him. name brought up very little , even in news searches. adding his name to keywords brought up lots of sources, although little in the way of profiles. Still, book reviews, shorter but significant treatments, and that 2010 article [3] in the Independent. I truly think it satisfies notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - Just not seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. It seems worth noting that a lot of the coverage of him, while it does talk about his work in particular, seems due to the notability of his father (this doesn't apply to all sources, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites, User:Greykit, Allons! I hope you'll both take another look as I expand the page and source it to more of the London papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough of a question for me to strike my weak delete !vote, but not enough to switch to keep. I think the better case is for his book, but I'm just not sure about him. Abstaining. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now adding more sources, material; editors looking at this AFD should note that he was editor of a major magazine Mcgill, is columnist for a major daily, and has written 3 books: a novel published in 1985, republished in 2002; a widely-cited and discussed biography (of his Dad); a memoir of his diplomatic career that was a national bestseller.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bulk of these references don't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Listing every passing reference to a person doesn't establish notability. Having a famous father doesn't confer notability. Is The Sun a reliable source now? Is The Mirror? Or the Sunday Mirror? Is the Daily Mail even one? --Inother (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User:Inother. And may I say that I am awed by the lightening speed with which you are able to assess complex careers in disparate fields and iVote on their notability,E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the edits at other AfDs (do you?) it is really very simple. If a guideline/policy like WP:GNG (or WP:BIO in the case of people) is not satisfied then 'delete' is the sensible option. The edit confirming this takes seconds. The thinking, checking and deciding may take days. None of that makes any difference. I stand by what I said. I still doubt the validity of The Sun and The Mirror as reliable sources. As WP:V says, "Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." --Inother (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think that even the Daily Mail is evidence of ~~notoriety~~ notability. But, seriously, the article is heavily sourced not only to Village (magazine) (competitor to Delaney's Magill) but to to The Sunday Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, The Irish Times, BBC, etc., in addition to the tabloids to which User:Inother objects. More to the point: WP:AUTHOR is probably satisfied by the reviews his bestseller Accidental Diplomat, and press coverage of the fuss it caused in government circles. As to "passing references", Delaney is such a jack-of-all-trades that I chose to source each career listed in the first sentence of the lede with a RS: "columnist" "author", etc. (Look at the first of these, "columnist" [4], an article from the Sunday Times that establishes him both as a "columnist" and as "high-profile individuals" making waves in Irish politics). Editors should be warned that Delaney's personality, as well as his local and international political stances have created enemies for him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - E.M. Gregory's link is compelling and there is a very big Google footprint for this individual. Certainly a public figure in Ireland and looks very much like a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to vote keep because it meets WP:BIO because he is the main subject of articles in newspapers, but almost all the articles go to something called http://search.proquest.com. @E.M.Gregory: it seems you put them in. What is this? Elgatodegato (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elgatodegato, Proquest newspapers is a search tool available though institutions that subscribe (such as major research libraries) it allows you to easily find and read full articles. It is particularly useful with careers like Delaney's, that go back to the 90's and earlier.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone Elgatodegato wanting a quick taste of Delaney, and a quick idea of how well-known he is, take a look at these [5] 2 paragraphs in an essay that ran in Haaretz, a daily in a country where he was never posted as a diplomat: "I'd have preferred to escort the Iraqi ambassador's wife," writes my wicked compatriot Eamon Delaney in "An Accidental Diplomat," a runaway bestseller two years ago that used my favorite quote about diplomats as its motto - a diplomat is someone who thinks twice before saying nothing. "With her chunky gold jewelry and strong calves, she was in that sexy `mature woman' bracket that gets young men excited at the start of their careers. I imagined her vaguely bored in a hot foreign posting and looking for a bit of (youthful) action. What would the Iraqis do if you threw the leg over? Throw the rest of you over to join it, I suspect."

"When he was at the United Nations, Delaney played the strange role of many affable Irish diplomats in his position, who have to sit "between Iraq and a hard place" - for the UN seats its delegates alphabetically. "I shook hands with the delegates of Iran and Iraq, who wouldn't speak to one another, and then with the delegate of Israel whom the other two wouldn't even look at." Delaney sat "between the I's" as the world ganged up on Iraq in 1990 over Saddam's despicable occupation of Kuwait, but he personally declined to join the official consensus of making all Iraqis into monsters. "The Iraqi delegates were really OK people and far more personable than the Iranians or, at times, the Israelis. The Iranians were the most chilling people in the room - compared to them the Iraqis were a bit of crack, talking about shopping or sports. They even warmed to [my friend's] search for a girl friend, suggesting one of the El Salvador delegates. `But she's so big,' we said. `Yes, yes, big is good,' said the Iraqis." E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 14 May 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 // 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

summing up Delaney wrote a memoir of his brief career as an Irsih diplomat that was so funny and so feisty that it became a bestseller. He was editor of a major Irish political magazine. He is now columnist at a major Irish newspaper. He also wrote a bio of his famous sculptor Dad. His books and columns are widely cited. He is also written up in profiles. His activities, jobs, and opinions are covered in major media not only in Ireland, but also in Britain. He writes about politics, therefore some people hate him. Beyond that, I honestly have no idea why it has taken so long to keep this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notwithstanding the poorly organised article, agree with E.M.Gregory, subject is a published author, was editor of a national publication, is a regular columnist with a top selling national newspaper and is a well known personality - all strong criterion for WP:BIO. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quirinus X (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a bit of work, but is notable and I agree with E.M.Gregory... subject is a published author, was editor of a national publication, is a regular columnist with a top selling national newspaper and is a well known personality - all strong criterion for WP:BIO. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is the 2nd AfD I've found where you have literally copied and pasted another !vote. LibStar (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two-stage model of free will[edit]

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

Another random assortion of quotation apparently supporting the topic, but all searches lead to Bob Doyle (inventor), who seems to have created the page, and whose own article is also nominated for deletion, or a small group of writers on quantum indeterminacy. The field is not large enough to be notable, in my view, is probably WP:FRINGE, and in any case very few of the quotes actually support the subject. Peter Damian (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic WP:OR. jps (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia doesn't publish original theories. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay (WP:OR). Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see secondary sources discussing the topic, only primary sources to construct WP:OR. Ward20 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. The user created other dubious articles with the same format and problems: Do otherwise in the same circumstances, Alternative possibilities, and Free will in antiquity. His biography of Randolph Clarke looks very thin on notability. His articles Self-determination (philosophy), Dilemma of determinism, and Freedom of action should be examined with an eye to whether the topics are representative of philosophical thought, or whether they, too, are a patchwork of synthesis. His abandoned user draft at User:Cmsreview/Free will models should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware of those articles, but using this one as a straw man. Also, I don't know how to nominate more than one article for deletion Peter Damian (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have nominated all of these for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOR. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ----Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Philosophy of Science? Page differs. VandVictory (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1548 Palomaa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: minor mentions on Google scholar, but nothing substantial. Praemonitus (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyvio Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Storm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable porn star. No real claim of notability for the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources to pass GNG. Previously deleted at AfD but may not qualify for a speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero assertion of notability, imdb is just a string of porn films. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no question about it: she definitely doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 13/05/2015, 20:24.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with prerendered backgrounds[edit]

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

Comes off as trivial, with a section in its table labeled "Resident Evil-like controls" doesn't have me thinking this article meets the notability criteria. GamerPro64 17:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable characteristic/criteria of a video game. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a distinct style of videogame graphics, so if there are reliable sources, an article could be written incorporating a list of notable examples. I can only find low-quality sources[6][7][8][9], or I'd argue keep/rewrite. But a legitimate article might be created. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:23, 14 May 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) 14:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Prerendering might be worth its own article or at least a mention on the video game glossary but this is not a helpful list only because I think it'll be impossible to find sources for most games on the list—prerendered graphics are not so notable a game element. Not worth redirecting either. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. Cola, your fourth link there is a mirror of Wikipedia. – czar 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, source #2 is unusable as well. 1UP.com is usable, but not their blog entries, as they can be written by anyone signs up for an account - violating WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of sources that make note of this means that much of the list is unsourceable. It's likely that enough sources could be found to create an article about prerendered backgrounds in video games, with a few notable examples. Not an exhaustive list however. Reach Out to the Truth 16:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is not necessary and if anything should be a category. if by some chance this is kept we should drop the Resisden Evil like controls part since this list covers genes that would never have included this type of control scheme in the first place (side scrollers, point and click adventure games etc).--70.27.228.231 (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - multiple reasons already explained above. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from being a really weird thing to list when it should be a category, this is completely non-notable and doesn't even describe what "Resident Evil-like controls" are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngeaup (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C++/Tcl[edit]

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

Non-notable software library, fails WP:GNG, WP:PROMO. Page content almost completely copied straight from the official website except some promotional language has been removed. Only ref is more of an external link to the unrelated (and notable) Boost library that inspired it, but does not mention it at all. ― Padenton|✉ 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not widely used, and not much has been written about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find significant coverage that proves notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Aslanidis[edit]

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

Unsourced Biographical article, fails WP:GNG ― Padenton|✉ 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 16:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - unsourced does not mean it fails WP:GNG. I linked it to the Greek equivalent, which has references and multiple contributors. Also put in Greek name to help with finding sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: unsourced does not mean it fails WP:GNG.: See Comma#In_lists. For anyone else: [10] is the Greek article. ― Padenton|✉ 20:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padenton Special:Random. So are you still claiming he fails GNG or what? —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article seems sourced do me. Also linked to Greek language version which has even more sources. Basis of nomination is flawed. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have held a senior enough position for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the Greek article he was deputy Prime Minister which easily passes WP:POLITICIAN (and the Greek article has a reference to this). Davewild (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Mero Wey[edit]

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

Article about a Mexican druglord that is equal parts pure speculation and pure hoax. The single picture claiming to be this person is actually of a different druglord from Mexico (El Diego from La Línea). No actually verifiable information is contained in this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would need a complete rewrite even if the subject were notable, which he isn't. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources at all. APerson (talk!) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely nothing to support this article. I'm a Spanish speaker so I found nothing there so I suspect this is fictional. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely hoax. Looks like the article's creator started with the infobox in Nazario Moreno González and ran with it. - Location (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - author now requests it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Super League Teams Ranking According to League Positions[edit]

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

This is not notable enough to warrant an article and WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. An admin suggested I go to AfD. QED237 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. QED237 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this doesn't warrant an article. Info like this might be better in the football records in turkey article. -Koppapa (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable LISTCRUFT / OR. Giant Snowman 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, OR and the average is undefined when the team had a year with no ranking. CRwikiCA talk 14:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hariomhacker[edit]

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

Non-notable hacker. Unable to turn up any sources establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. APerson (talk!) 13:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Halifax train crash[edit]

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

PRODded by IP; reason given was "WP:EVENT, accident caused no deaths, had a semi-significant, but very brief coverage, and no new measures have been implemented afterward, not much lasting impact on the railroad industry." I am uncertain about how we view passenger rail accidents but felt this needed formal discussion; at present I reserve judgement. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For a start, it should have been left as a PROD until challenged, there was no need to bring it straight to AfD merely because an IP had prodded it. It is an accident on a modern rail system that injured in excess of fifty people. It is far too soon to claim that there have been no changes made, as the investigation is still ongoing and has yet to report. These things typically take a year or so. IMHO, no measures will be implemented on the railroad industry as a result of this accident. But I would not be at all surprised if measures were introduced that impacted on the road and police industries. Mjroots (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incident injured a large number of people and received significant media attention. Dough4872 19:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Train derailments with this many injuries that receive this much media attention are rare enough that it passes WP:EVENT. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, most train derailments are always rare enough to pass WP:EVENT. Donatrip (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Train hits truck, no deaths, routine news coverage. Be an encyclopedia, not CNN. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Significant train accident, nearly 5 dozen injured and/or hospitalized, disruption of a major train corridor plus pending litigation. And deaths are not the litmus test for determining a major train accident.Juneau Mike (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident has unusual qualities surrounding it, other than the usual rarity of train derailments. The year 2015 is not even over yet. It has a navbox and a category for events in 2015. Let the article stay. Fylbecatulous talk 23:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This derailment with many injuries is just as important as the Philadelphia accident.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Senior Living[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined as CSD with suggestion of AFD. Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was the admin that declined the speedy, the article asserted notability, and had several citations. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization has far more coverage in WP:RS than many others I have seem [11], [12]. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the 4 larger organisations/companies offering senior living facilities don't have wikipedia articles, they should get them now. Keep per User:Chrislk02. --do ncr am 01:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has sufficient quality sources to show notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2011 Tour of California. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountain passes and hills in the Tour of California[edit]

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

Listcruft that only contains (unref'd) data for one year of the event. An abandoned project of a non-notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move info to 2011 Tour of California and delete. 178.94.120.148 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the text and changed to a redirect. Close it please. 178.94.120.148 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that redirect, as the AfD is still live. A redirect would be pointless, as it's an unlikely search term. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2011 Tour of California. I don't see a reason not to include the information there. This would need to be retained as a redirect to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 Tour of California, which will enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 Tour of California. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFIXIT applies (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian chefs[edit]

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

Article is a list of the "Best Indian Chefs," as determined by the author, in violation of WP:ESSAY and WP:SOAPBOX. There is virtually no other content aside from a 2 sentence intro and the list. --Non-Dropframe _talk 09:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Indian chefs. Furthermore, lists such as these can be expanded in many ways that categories cannot, such as with added descriptions, sources, images, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The nominator should read MOS:LIST. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Certainly notable. There is one simple solution for the issues raised and that is to fix them. — Yash! ^(Y) 11:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearNLP[edit]

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

Article about a software project. Fails WP:GNG notability. - Mr X 17:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClearNLP has been widely used in many Natural Language Processing communities just like OpenNLP or Mallet. Please consider this to be in Wikipedia; I believe many people will benefit from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdchoi77 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdchoi77, if you are actually J D Choi, i.e. one of the principal authors of the tool, perhaps you could add references to the article? Searching google scholar for clearnlp choi and mccallum 2013 is one place to start. Mallet (software project) needs references too. - Pointillist (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pointillist, I added several references to the ClearNLP page, including the Choi & McCallum, 2013. I will try to add more information. - Jdchoi77, 7 May 2015.

@Jdchoi77, If you could add some references authored by third parties who cite your papers, that would help to convince... - Pointillist (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is, unless somebody seriously improves "bad vanispamcruft" into "referenced, proper stub" before this AFD hits its timeout. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software project of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. All refs provided are papers authored or co-authored by JD Choi. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no significant, independent RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regrettably because IMO this topic fits within a notable path of research. However seeing that the original author hasn't contributed anywhere else and apparently isn't prepared to collaborate here there's no justification for the current article to stay. Single-purpose – and indeed single-interest – contributors are not generally desirable because they tend to be unacceptably biased. That doesn't mean I accept that Jdchoi77 (talk · contribs) is J D Choi – indeed I'm inclined to doubt it: I've not seen other academics perform so ineffectively on wikipedia: people with genuine research skill usually do quite well here. - Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aakash Pandey[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(comment left on this AfD's talk page by user|Bollywoodwiki2015) Hey I dream of horses Sir I just saw ur req for Deletetion of Aakash Pandey Aakash Pandey . sir he is one of the finest performer in India we have . he is worked in many popular shows on television . he also acted in many films [[13]].

we like his performance , he is noy only finest Actor but also one one the besy script writer in India . Please help us and dont remove this page from Wiki . Regards form Indian Television Fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollywoodwiki2015 (talk • contribs)

Comment The English language references don't seem to qualify as reliable sources that cover the subject in some depth. However, before !voting to delete, I'd like to know if references in Hindi exist to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, and as the comment ends with "Hey thanks every one & Special thanks to Admin to "KEEP" this article . this Artical is realy importernt for us as indian television viewers . it is our humbele request to close this discussion. Regards to every one", that misplaced comment on the talk page should be interpreted here as a poorly spelled and formated Keep by someone who does not understand our rules. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a pretty much deleted article at Wikipedia article:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Pandey(Actor). After seeing his article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Pandey is going to be deleted. He has created new article page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aakash_Pandey(Actor). which was deleted 21:22, 23 April 2015 Chrislk02 (talk | contribs) deleted page Aakash Pandey(Actor) (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Aakash Pandey)... It is now, probably, too late to add that to this discussion, so I have no idea what to do about it.David 18:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC) David (or — ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ) (see his edits)[reply]

Well, you've already brought forward that an inexperienced new editor (with 30-lifetime-edits ever) contributed a duplicate new article which was subsequently and properly speedied under WP:A10. That noob error on his part does not affect consideration of this topic meeting WP:NACTOR. But thanks for pointing out the noob's error. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has played minor and supporting roles in various films and TV shows, but fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Mentioned only in passing in cited media articles (which themselves are mostly second-tier sources), eg [14], [15] and I couldn't locate anything more comprehensive. Abecedare (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Aakash Pandey Akash Pandey

Keep per meeting WP:BIO through WP:NACTOR. Even if not considering his screenwriting or assistant director gigs, like most actors he began with minor roles... but his career has built and he now receiving the media attention and significant roles he did not get some 5 - 10 years ago. Verifiable as recurring named character Khabri Tiwari for two years on Bhagonwali-Baante Apni Taqdeer, for four years as named character Radhey on Hitler Didi, as named character Vicky Nayak on P Se PM Tak, as named character Guru Ji on Bhaiyyaji Superhitt, and as named character Sutradha on Bangistan (to name but a few) convince. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note @I dream of horses: That which you first nominated has been improved. I believe WP:BIO through WP:NACTOR is shown as met. Opinion? Thoughts? Pichpich? ManishSrivastava1? Abecedare? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:, The article is certainly well-written and well formatted, but I still don't find any non-trivial coverage of the subject at all. For example, here is an exhaustive account of what the sources listed in the article say about him:

"It's B'day time for Parmeet Sethi, Dayanand Shetty, Hrishikesh Pandey and Akash Pandey"
"Akash Pandey too is acting in several serials" (trans. from article on Bhartendu Academy of Dramatic Arts)
[9 other documentaries produced by the students]..."and 'Marnoparant' by Akash Pandey drew much applause."
"Other than this Akshay Dogra and Abhaas Mehta are also part of the show."
Name mentioned in cast list of P Se PM Tak
Name mentioned in cast list of Bangistan
Name mentioned in cast list of Bangistan
"Aakash Pandey and Bruna Abdullah plays various roles."

Apart from this there is a wikipedia article used as source, a user generated list of actors from UP, a profile of his great-grandfather on a poetry site that does not mention the subject, and a profile on a movie database website that is almost surely submitted by the actor, and a search result on another movie database site. These are all the listed references in the article, and I didn't find anything more comprehensive on a web-search either.

So I don't see how the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. For the latter I would expect at least some discussion about his acting or the roles he played to establish either's significance. Abecedare (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like Abecedare, I'm not seeing any coverage of significant depth in the present sources. Pichpich (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of meeting an aspect of WP:NACTOR does not also demand a meeting of WP:GNG. Those two guides are mutually supportive, not exclusionary. If SNGs wre intended to over-ruled the GNG, then all the SNGs should be themselves deleted or rendered historic. Toss out all SNGs and I could then agree with a deletion.

So thank you for your comments, but as we have verification and no policy violation, I think it best to wait for input from Hindi-reading Wikipedians, rather than toss over a misinterpretations of SNG intent or our own weakness in not being Hindi-reading. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles", and I said above the subject does not meet that requirement IMO. Btw, I can read Hindi (and Devanagari in general). How else did you think I read and translated from Navbharat Times in the list above, or commented upon the www.kavitakosh.org link ? Abecedare (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and recurring as a named character (rather than a descriptive) shows a significance to storyline, plot, or production. Lacking policy violations and verifiable as recurring named character Khabri Tiwari for two years on Bhagonwali-Baante Apni Taqdeer, for four years as named character Radhey on Hitler Didi, as named character Vicky Nayak on P Se PM Tak, as named character Guru Ji on Bhaiyyaji Superhitt, and as named character Sutradha on Bangistan (to name but a few) convince me that WP:NACTOR is met. "Verification" for an SNG is clarified at WP:GNGACTOR... and so (to me at least)...Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and WP:INDAFD's Aakash Pandey Akash Pandey perhaps encourage that it's time for digging away from what the article currently offers as sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not qualify as WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a handful of minor roles, but doesn't come close to WP:NACTOR in my view. I'm sympathetic to the argument that it's usually harder to find written information on Indian topics than Western ones, but when it's a BLP we're talking about, caution is called for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 15:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen (website)[edit]

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

The site is now offline, and I can't find any reliable, independent sources beyond the one cited here. (This reference is a press release). Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First of all, this isn't something that would've attracted wide attention so the East Bay Express source is the best there is. My searches found nothing and that was across News and Books, non-notable website. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 1 May 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, Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn King (singer)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Ms. King seems to only have a biography because she was one of Larry King's wives. One of the few sources to discuss her refers to her as "King's wife", showing the lack of notability. Coverage isn't sufficient for WP:GNG, and she doesn't meet WP:NSINGER either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched under her previous name "Shawn Southwick" and was unable to find significant coverage except as Larry King's 7th wife. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 28 April 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 02:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Song of Ice and Fire characters. Been up 3 weeks and both nom & !voters believe this ought to be at said list so no point in dragging this on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rickon Stark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A minor fictional character somewhat notorious for being forgotten about by both the authors of the novels he appears in and their TV adaptation. I think we should follow the sources in this regard, because I can't imagine this poor little Stark meeting WP:N on his own. The only secondary source cited, Publishers Weekly, doesn't even mention him. There's really so little to say about the character, both in and out of universe, that all he can really aspire to is an entry in List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. Sandstein 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list mentioned above. Fails WP:BKD. Completely minor character, only 3 at the start of the books and therefore unlikely to ever become a major character. Had maybe 4-5 lines in the TV series. Not sure why we need to be a mirror for A Wiki of Ice and Fire. ― Padenton|✉ 03:15, 3 May 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 02:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Minor, nearly-forgotten character with no real-world coverage in reliable sources other than an name-drop here and there in the vein of whatever happened to..." Tarc (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Very little participation so no prejudice to a speedy relist. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24/6: A Jewish Theater Company[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage." Eeekster (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Just barely squeaks by IMO. Articles about the troupe itself, plus actual reviews, which indicate some notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 April 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 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BagItToday[edit]

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

BagItToday appears to be a run of the mill e-business.

The sole reference is from a website that appears to dedicated to promoting e-businesses, quite possibly hosting media releases; in my opinion, this website is nowhere near a reliable source.

This article fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG and numbers of other policies and guidelines Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because Axel Springer has invested here does not make the company WP:Notable. The fellow has his money spread all over the world. Wait until we get some actual, real news about this outfit. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=%22BagItToday%22&FORM=HDRSC6. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:15, 1 May 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 06:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Marriage (Taxi)[edit]

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

Is this the only Taxi episode with its own article? Fuddle (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC) (addition: the first episode has an article, it's problematic, but it's at least notable. And it has a category that I nominated for deletion. Fun!)[reply]

Delete. Big Taxi fan, but this isn't a particularly notable episode. Plus there's nothing there that isn't already in List of Taxi episodes, and the latter's synopsis is much better. No "wik wik" for this article. "Boy, Wikipedia's a tough town." Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 April 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 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much to support this episode's notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasat Khaton[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as a professional footballer of a association football club. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guideline requires that play in a fully pro league, which he has not done. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. LibStar (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1526 Mikkeli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those under 2000 to be discussed and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Crowley[edit]

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

Created with SPA Single Purpose Account "Sillystring575", does not meet general notability guidelines. Pro771189 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've trimmed back a fair bit of puffery, trivia and statements unsupported by their citations, although even with that I don't see a GNG pass here; the subject has been quoted in local media, but quotes from a subject explicitly cannot be used to support the notability of a subject. That being said, considering that this AfD is the sole Wikipedia activity of the nom, I wouldn't in his shoes make a point of pointing SPA fingers. Ravenswing 15:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as User:Ravenswing says, the nom is a SPA. Crowley is a political actor clearly disliked by the right wing. That said, I can't source the "flight of the earls" claim reliably. His only real claim to notability was being active in a labor union drive to elect candidates in a 2010 election. There is noting in-depth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agre[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Difficult words to search. I've been digging through caste-related sources for years now and have never come across this one in anything that is reliable. A GSearch shows nothing but mirrors, matrimonial websites and the unreliable Martial races book by Tyagi. Sitush (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did a search, not as rigorous as the nominator, but FWIW found nothing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 April 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 11:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jacobs (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player, sources available are all routine and don't pass GNG. Wizardman 02:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through Alex's sources, I'm striking my deletion request since in his case the sourcing is actually fairly strong, which is generally not the case for minor leaguers even today. Wizardman 00:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable subject, fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had added some articles as external links, but I think there's more coverage out there, perhaps enough for GNG. I can't really search right now though because I'm in a hotel with spotty WiFi. When I have time, I'll look deeper, but I'd appreciate it if someone else could give a thorough search for this individual in the meantime. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Didn't see anything beyond the routine coverage that any good recruit or any non-elite minor leaguer receives. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails the notability guidelines and playing in the minor leagues is not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. The stuff in the "external links" section of the page is enough, but there is also [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and there is more. He also received considerable coverage on Scout.com. Add that to [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Alex (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could have half the sources and still pass GNG pretty easily.--Yankees10 06:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the long list of sources above are all so great, why is this article still so lousy? The article is just a recap of basic sports transactions and now-worthless prospects listings. The page is all but useless. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbny, have you ever considered actually contributing to Wikipedia for once by, say, improving the article, rather than trying to delete everything that doesn't fit in your small scope of what is "notable"? Alex (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This. What matters is the potential, not just the current state. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alex. I had found some sources, and add in those that Alex found and this guy meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found and cited by Alex appear to demonstrate that Jacobs passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass per Alex's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequate sources to demonstrate GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 11:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VIBEO VI BIOS[edit]

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

In its current state, it's totally unencyclopaedic, and possibly (but not obviously, hence I removed the speedy template) advertising, though the author insists otherwise, and seems to want it to be discussed, so here goes. Adam9007 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete There are so many things wrong with this article, where do I begin? First of all, it should have been speedied for "no indication of significance" and a google search supports that this is non-notable. It has zero references, and obviously followed none of Wikipedia's guidelines. Regardless of what the article creator says, it is also clearly advertising from what I can tell. I'd be shocked if this was anyone other than an affiliate of the YouTube channel trying to drive traffic to their videos, because they make money off of them. Pretty clear cut case here. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 as an article about web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and per G11 as an exclusively promotional article that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. —teb728 t c 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female copulatory vocalizations[edit]

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

Delete. The article seems to violate WP:NEO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING Ormr2014 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A topic that has received legitimate scientific inquiry: the article already includes multiple scholarly citations, and there are other sources on the topic (see [29]), as well as news reports about the topic such as [30][31][32]. We may want to consider retitling to copulatory vocalization to leave room for content about males, as well as content about non-primates such as [33]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our articles on sex-related topics are really lacking. If anything we need more articles, not deletions. If you compare for instance the comprehensive nature of articles related to sports, species, metropolitan areas, sexual topics come nowhere near the coverage. This is probably the only longstanding page on sounds in sex. We would be stupid; in fact retarded to delete it. As far as i know, the nominator has suggested that he is a prude and deletionist elsewhere. If that is the case, it would be preferable that he devotes his time elsewhere where his/here possible bias would not come into play. Freidnless lnoner (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. The topic has received significant coverage in scholarly research sources. Sources include, but are not limited to: ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://twitter.com/CamcamKennedy
^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdXIvPlSn7Gpu3v6snjHMxw
^ http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/cameron-kennedy
^ http://www.freshtvinc.com/blog/happy-birthday-cameron-kennedy/
^ "Function of Copulatory Vocalizations in Mate Choice by Females of Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata) - Abstract - Folia Primatologica 1995, Vol. 64, No. 3 - Karger Publishers". karger.com.
^ "Copulatory vocalizations of female macaques (Macaca fascicularis): Variability factors analysis". springer.com.
^ "Evidence to Suggest that Copulatory Vocalizations in Women Are Not a Reflexive Consequence of Orgasm". springer.com.
^ WJ Hamilton 3rd. "Copulatory vocalizations of chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), gibbons (Hylobates hoolock), and humans". sciencemag.org.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Strong keep A valid article about a notable subject. There is plenty of reliable research available on this subject and it has recieved coverage in reliable sources. Thank you Trout 71 16:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn. The general consensus is to keep the article so I'm withdrawing my nomination. Ormr2014 (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AMCS-advanced music construction system[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; I can find no coverage at all. Esquivalience ^t 02:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article per WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to the company, so article is likely promotional. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 indeed Wily D 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Paulo Lam[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger (fails WP:BASIC) and possible WP:HOAX; no coverage at all. Possible hoax, because the mentioned blog in the article does not exist. Esquivalience ^t 02:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete qualifies for WP:A7. --Non-Dropframe _talk 08:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. With no true claims of notability (a 12-year-old that has two blogs and says he wants to be in the NBA one day) in the article and no search hits, I can't see this closing as anything other than a delete.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Dale[edit]

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

This subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it has no reliable sources, and it seems unlikely any will be found. Article managed to be written in just the right way to avoid any relevant CSD criteria, and BLPPROD, so needs to come here to AfD. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. No indication of importance of individual in the article. This is an autobio by a teenager where it is simply stated that the individual runs two blogs, no indication why they are notable. Cowlibob (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-No clue why the speedy I put was removed for a AFD-this guy is not notable. (I accidently did put the vandalism speedy though only cause I misread it and thought it said he was a NBA player) Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear majority for deletion, and the case that notability is lacking has merit since there is a distinct lack of sourcing. The article cites the page [34] which makes no mention of Aarthi, and the IMDB entry which is generally not considered or used as a reliable source. I am therefore closing this AFD accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aarthi_(actress)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Aarthi (actress)

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Lacks Independent Sources. Too much based on single primary source. Doublefrog (talk) 06:06, 5 May 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 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has acted in over 40 South Indian movies, at least five television shows and is a recipient of an award that is considered significant in Tamil arts. Clearly passes WP:NACTOR. — Yash! ^(Y) 22:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG - Yup she's starred in a few shows but we judge mainly on notability, Not on how many shows they've been in, Anyway I can't find anything on her so will have to go with Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the number of films she's been in, it doesn't appear that independent and reliable sources felt these roles were noteworthy enough to write about. Additionally there doesn't seem to be much written in depth about her. As for the award, it's not clearly a "well-known and significant award" per WP:ANYBIO. Mkdw ^talk 01:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of minor roles, but no media coverage or sources available (search complicated because her name is so common, and it is possible that alternate transliterations are used). The only source cited in the article doesn't mention Aarthi under any spelling variant and seems unrelated to the sentence it is attached to. She does seem to have won the Kalaimamani award, but I don't believe that is sufficient to satisfy WP:NACTOR especially given the minimal coverage the awards garner. eg [35]. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - Won the Kalaimamani award. She has acted in many Indian movies, and several television shows. See Link. Also see Tamil sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Antoine[edit]

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

Non-notable failed candidate Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not GNG or NPOL as a failed candidate. My search could only find a book written by a relative so no significant coverage in reliable independent sources [[36]]. The book ref only indicates he had an impact on his local town of roughly 5,000 people Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin . Cowlibob (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no claim has been demonstrated, or even attempted, here — this is resting entirely on the failed candidacies themselves. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet general notability guildelines as far as I can tell. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Vyom[edit]

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

Could not find any sources to document notability. On Google and in article all are blogs or WP:SPS or unreliable. Note: User:Dr.jagdish is the subject of this article. Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 08:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources which shows his notability [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - I've undone the hatting and converted all links above to links which is alot more easier for readers than the prev formatting, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, As I said the sources are unreliable or self published. Like see this link of Kavitaakosh where it shows Jagdish Vyom as member. Bharatdiscovery.org is a wiki like Wikipedia. Google books shows a poem wriiten by him. (Not sufficient for notability, what we will write in the article, his poem?) Youtube is not a reliable source either. Because it is user generated. The rest of the sources you provided are directories. It shows that person exists but do not prove notability. Only Deshbandhu can be termed reliable but in the article, it says nothing about him. Incidentally it is written by Jagdish Vyom himself.--Hindust@ni^{क्या करें? बातें!} 14:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have introduced some reliable sources. Please you can find it. Thank you --Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 12:40, 30 April 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 11:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Pavloviḱ - Latas[edit]

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

This is not a notable person, he doesn't have an article in his own native wiki edition. The page is largely unreferenced and there is no mentioning of him in the English media.--Retrohead (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man is notable; a lot more can be said about him from the numerous sources available. The biography as it appears today looks like an attack piece, focusing on one incident about the US embassy, but Pavlovic-Latas has been in the news for other things, too.[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67] And here's a blog we cannot use, but it helps to show that Pavlovic-Latas is prominent. The biography should be expanded to include more of the events that Pavlovic-Latas is famous for. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability concluded.--Zoupan 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of the sourcing pointed out in the latter part of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexalytics[edit]

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

Company fails to meet WP:CORP; I am only able to find press releases and minor "A bought B" news bites, with nothing significant to demonstrate notability. Primefac (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only "reference" appears to be a disguised press release.--Rpclod (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment the spi owning the article has again readded a great number of press release regurgitation and repackaging sites and primary source links to non notable "awards" from non notable organizations. (and attempted to remove the AfD notice, to boot) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Page Accidental inclusion of Mr. Roebuck's book has been deleted. The only press release deals with non-controversial, numerical facts (ie the number of languages the program is able to process). If this is sincerely unacceptable then it can be taken out without issue. However, that information is widely reported and provable by interacting with company's site. Claiming an award is "non notable" and from a "non-notable" organization is a matter of opinion and not grounds to flag a page for deletion. There was no malicious intent to remove the AfD notice. This message was received today: "This page was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep." That is why the AfD was deleted--It was not without cause. Also, it is untrue that there are a great number of press releases and repackaging sites. A further explanation as to why this was flagged for deletion is requested.

Charleslegros (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Charleslegros:, the entire point of an AfD is to say "I think this page is non-notable, does anyone else agree?" So yes, it's a matter of opinion, one which (currently) is matched by at least one other user, and if the consensus is to delete the page, it gets deleted. As a small point of interest, you added the {{old AfD}} tag yourself, so do not act like removing the AfD notice was any sort of miscommunication. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roebucks book, as it is made clear in the introduction is a mere Wikipedia scraping for which they claim no editorial oversight or accuracy]. As such it fails WP:CIRCULAR and is not a valid source to establish notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some good resources, notably the ones in InfoWeek and #11 (Forbes). There are others that are not of good quality and should be removed, and the whole article needs to be re-written to remove jargon and promotional language. If kept, I will try to get back to it. Warning -- it will end up being less than half the size it is now. (Odd logorrhea from a company that mines content from short messages.) LaMona (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article cited by at least two reliable sources, Xconomy and Information Week and meets the WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article needs editing there does look to be sufficient coverage here to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of most populous cities in Pakistan[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion of this list as it is based around speculation and original research. From the article lede: "Since no official census has taken place after 1998, these figures are estimates based on a steady estimated growth rate of about 3%-4% which would produce a slight over-estimate. The next census is expected to be held in 2016/2017." If I am misinterpreting, please contact me on my talk page. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lists based on estimated populations are pointless. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator's description of the article as it currently stands, or rather the figures in it, as "speculation and original research" seems about right - the article has a claimed source for the figures, but the current figures in the article are definitely not from that source, whose figures at city level seems to be from the 1998 census rather than far higher "2014 estimates" as labelled in the article. However, there seems to be general acceptance of lists of city populations like this one, and the claimed source is one that is used in at least some other such lists, so I'm provisionally accepting it as reliable. Given this (and the nominator produces no argument in disagreement), I am disappointed that the nominator apparently did not sample the article's lengthy history to try to find earlier versions where the figures in the article did correspond with the source. As it happens, there do appear to be such earlier versions reporting 1998 census figures that do at least mostly agree with the referenced source, the latest of which seems to be this one from last summer. The most obvious first solution is therefore not deletion but reverting to that version and cleaning up the relatively few discrepancies with the source. Assuming (again) the source to be OK, the only reason I can see against this is that the article has received a lot of attention from IP editors who have been changing (usually inflating) the figures without producing any alternative sources (User:Elockid, at one time, seems to have been reverting a lot of these edits, but seems not to have been around much recently). If we keep this, therefore, it is either going to need semi-protection or editors who are able and willing to keep a frequent eye on it. PWilkinson (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lists of most populous cities is a worthwhile topic, I think we all agree on this. As with all of my nominations, best efforts were made prior (as per WP:BEFORE) to locate appropriate sourcing but were not successful. Thank you for reviewing the edit history as well. With the diff you have provided [68] one of the referenced links are broken and the second link does not present itself as suitable as an encyclopedic source. Please also note that there are over 100 pages linking to this speculative list, some of which are using this list as a source to support content in other articles. See Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_Pakistan. With that in mind, I am not opposed to replacing this list with one that is appropriately sourced, should that be possible. What is your understanding of the diff you have provided, are you confident in the sources? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This flawed piece of original research and speculation should be converted to sourced data or blanked. The topic, however, is notable. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the proviso that it's rolled back to a version based on reliable sources and cleaned up accordingly. I'm happy to indefinitely semi-protect the page if there is consensus to do so. Per Huon, perhaps ~~it's~~ it's not time to start again Philg88 ^♦talk 11:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there any consensus on there being a diff supported by reliable sources to roll back to? I am still of the mind that this list should be deleted for the reasons outlined above, but naturally would not object with it being replaced with one supported by trustworthy sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with no objection to writing a new list based on reliable sources - if necessary, the 1998 census, however outdated that is. I don't think there is a revision in the page history with recoverable reliable sources. Huon (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I have corrected it based on official 1998 census data. Sorry for convincing Philg88 to delete it when ultimately little effort was required to salvage it. Huon (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up; the list does have value per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because a census hasn't been conducted recently is not a valid reason to delete what is otherwise a notable list. There are alternative sources available and they should be used. This list is important as it displays the largest cities of Pakistan, ranked by population. As far as I know, we don't have any other list providing such details. Various other countries have such lists, so there is a precedent established. Mar4d (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Castañeda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Originally AfD'd and merged to a minor league page, but he's been in the Mexican League a few years now and isn't getting any more notable. Wizardman 21:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article does not demonstrate that baseball notability criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has earned significant coverage and passes GNG. [69][70][71][72][73][74]. These are just from the first four pages of Google.com.mx returns, there are many more beyond that. Alex (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. List of links posted above by Wikipedia's biggest troll are mostly routine coverage that any decent player gets. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage is not a reason to keep an article. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alex posted a multiple articles specifically about Castañeda. That is hardly routine coverage, and more than we find for many players listed at AfD. That the articles are in Spanish does not diminish their relevance. Even if they are "coverage that any decent player gets," the fact that they distinguish a "decent" player from something less makes the coverage more than routine. And that multiple sources saw fit to write articles specifically about Castañeda, as opposed to many of the players listed at AfD right now, indicates that this player is notable. Rlendog (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.. I'm a bit hesitant here as this guy is nothing special but the articles that Alex found, when run through google translate, are pretty substantial profiles of him so I think he passes GNG. Article could certainly use some expansion and these references should be included in it. Spanneraol (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Buckley[edit]

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

Non-notable failed candidate Orange Mike | Talk 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no claim has been demonstrated, or even attempted, here — this is resting entirely on the failed candidacies themselves. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Bearcat. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. There was a reasonably firm consensus that the original version was promotional in nature (which there is a specific policy against as part of WP:NOT). I have taken notice and appreciate Esquivalience's removal of most of the content to create a stub version. Unfortunately, it is my belief that an article in its current condition, could have been tagged or deleted as WP:A7 had it been encountered by New Page Patroller. With this in mind, I am calling a "delete" result here but note that writing up a new article free of bias remains possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Direct[edit]

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor in violation of Wikimedia Terms of Use. Reads like a advert, as the whole article is Milestones/Acheivements, and the company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The company appears to be notable enough to have its own article, though a rewrite of the article is necessary to remove the more advert-related content. O N R (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it's discouraged Paid editing isn't forbidden..., Anyway all that aside notability does seem to be there for this company and Personally I'm not seeing much promotional crap here that warrants deletion or WP:TNT. –Davey2010^Talk 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Promotional. BMK (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As promotion--it is possible it might be notable, but the references here do not show it. Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, we avoid giving paid editing as the sole reason; we do not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. For reasons given at WP:COI, it is extremely difficult to write proper WP articles for pay, though a few people have been able to learn how. It's a specialized form of writing, and people used to writing press releases or the like cannot easily re-orient themselves. If an editor writes a few unacceptable articles, we naturally check others they have written. Each one will be judged on its individual merits.

It is not permitted to use WP for purposes of advertising, paid or unpaid, and anyone who persists in doing so will be blocked from contributing in avoid to avoid further improper contributions. Once they are blocked, anything further they write under any username will be immediately deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge Company is notable in its home country, established as #2 online retailer in Australia. Founder is also notable. Article needs to be written to be less promotional. If consensus is not to keep, then content should be merged to founder, Ruslan Kogan. Scr★pIron^IV 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the company may be notable, however this isn't the article to show that. I would support a WP:TNT, and a more experienced editor creating a better article about the company instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is written entirely from a promotional perspective WP:TNT is needed. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of Hilumeoka2000's "paid editing" creations. There may be enough notability for a very carefully worded article written by someone without a COI, which would then need to be regularly monitored for advertising content, but we're better off nuking the spam first so it can get a fresh start. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify: Notable company per WP:CORP; however, I have reduced the article to a stub due to a promotional POV and a violation of the Wikimedia terms of service (no mention of client). Esquivalience ^t 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1311 Knopfia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those under 2000 to be discussed and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 5 May 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 00:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: two photometry studies found, but all they contain are data points with no commentary. Praemonitus (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons listed above. It won't hurt to have this as a redirect in the article namespace redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001-2000.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't see anything beyond what's already mentioned above that would justify keeping this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect' and merge anything useful. Best to keep the redirect so article not recreated after deletion. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, objections are not policy-based--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kumar Kalotee[edit]

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

Created by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Also, clearly WP:PROMO, with phrases like "Bobby Kumar Kalotee hails from Punjab, India. He was born in penury and lived in slums. He was not deterred by ugly state of his early life. He rather saw the obstacles he faced as a chance to make a difference to his own life and that of others.". Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The paid editing is irrelevant and not a reason to delete an article, but apart from that there's just nothing here but a failed candidate for office from a non-notable party. Coverage is routine "person X is running for political office Y", nothing more. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability is "first random X to do Y". If he's the first person South Asian to win office in the U.S., that'd be something. But he clearly isn't even that close on that one. But he wouldn't be, he's a failed candidate from a VERY minor third party and there's nothing to hang an article on here. The coverage cited in the article is very cursory, noting the odd "first" he claims (which is really not a big deal) with nothing else to build an article around, clearly not notable enough by Wikipedia standards for an article. --Jayron 32 02:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about your vendettas. Argue the merits of the articles themselves. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As highlighted on WP:ANI, my nominations were in good faith, and the user has been blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Running mate of failed candidate of totally unknown party. Deep-six this, BMK (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability for a failed politician (not even the primary candidate, but a running-mate) from an obscure party has not been established. Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Hilumeoka2000 paid-editing fiasco, but doesn't look like it would pass any reasonable standard of notability anyway. I don't think we need to bring in any expert political statisticians to notice that 0.13% of the vote really isn't very good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

This is the stated purpose of Wikipedia as per the president of Wikia Inc. How can we put artificial limits on this? Doesn't exposing people to less well known political parties and informing them as to its existence uphold this very purpose. There are solid newsworthy sources cited in the article. Let the people reading Wikipedia decide whether it's worth investigating further, not a few commentators with unknown agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kenpolitical (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between "knowledge", "information", and "data". It would be virtually impossible for any website to contain all the information and data that exists in the world, which is why it has to be boiled down to what is actually useful or notable, and that is, I believe, what Jimbo meant by "knowledge". Knowing who was the candidate from the Anti-Dishrag League in the previous Presidential election is not knowledge, it's hardly even "trivia" (which is little known knowledge), it's just another piece of almost useless data. If, on the other hand, the Anti-Dishrag League rises from the ashes like a phoenix and manages to elect a city council member in Boise, Idaho, then it might well become a notable piece of information - but until then, it ain't. BMK (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kenpolitical, our purpose here is not to collate "all human knowledge" — rather, some strands of human knowledge belong here and others do not, which is why we have content standards to filter which stuff falls into which category. A biography of the actual governor of New York absolutely belongs here — but a biography of every individual candidate who ever ran in an election, but lost, does not. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no credible claim of "notable for some other reason" has been demonstrated here — this is essentially a promotional brochure for a failed candidate who has no other reason why he would warrant our attention. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment.Once again your personal attacks belie your true intent to block this page based upon your personal agenda rather than the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Let's examine those guidelines for inclusion as your baseless attacks fail to actually mention them. For politicians:

"such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." Mr. Kumar's article includes 12 separate independent reliable sources. Therefore, he clearly meets the notability criterion notwithstanding your opinion otherwise. These guidelines exist to prevent the arbitrary exclusionist actions that you are attempting here. Kenpolitical (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Kenpolitical (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) — Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources appear to be press releases, routine, local coverage; people who run for elected office are covered as a routine part of the news cycle, it does not guarantee them a Wikipedia article. The only reason a candidate who took 0.1% of the votes in a state election is this "first asian..." stuff. If that's all there is, then WP:BLP1E prevents an article on those grounds. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment.http://indiaempire.com/v1/2009/May/coverstory.asp since when is New Delhi India local coverage "Kenpolitical (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

WP:BLP1E, coverage only in the context of him being the first Indian nominee. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN not elected only ran.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newfield Resources Limited[edit]

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

Created by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, fails WP:GNG and is also WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't feel the article should be deleted. It has reliable sources about a notable, as well as successful, company. BeastBoy3395 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly enough uninvolved secndary sources, almost all sourcing is primary and connected to the compnay. Fails notability. BMK (talk)
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and non-notable. They have raised monsy to look for gold and diamonds, but according to the article, they have not yet found any. If they fdo find it, and fine enough, they might be notable some day, but not yet.

Paid editing, even undeclared paid editing, is not a specific reason for deletion at AfD, but we can delete at AfD any article that the consensus determines is unfit for Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, it should not have been given as the primary reason. We do not need to. We certainly can and will delete an article about a non-notable subject, or a promotional article regardless of subject, and almost all articles written by undeclared paid editors fail on both grounds, along with a good many of those written by declared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, which is not even established in the article. Sources are mostly primary, and can not be used to establish notability. Scr★pIron^IV 15:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Fails ORG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of Hilumeoka2000's paid-editing articles. Non-notable and promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Quartarone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that meet WP:MUSIC, there is also a page on the Itlaian Wikipedia that also has no reliable sources. Maybe someone more familiar with Italian can establish WP:MUSIC, otherwise I think this should be deleted. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 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 11:31, 5 May 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 00:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Most of the sources simply prove that he's a session musician or are short and inconsequential. http://www.jazzitalia.net looks interesting, but not a RS. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nabilah Ratna Ayu Azalia[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO: only claim to notability is membership of a very large music and dance group that replaces its members early and often. Can't find significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources in English or Indonesian, just fan blogs and social media. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:44, 28 April 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 11:31, 5 May 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 00:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I love the search feature here so I tried it. A lot of blogs and forum entries then The Times of India showed up. I expected a story or a few press releases but found There are no related News. Aside from needing a grammar checker, I was not impressed. Why do they even have an entry? Buy BBC has an entry too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/13d2fcf5-e0a4-4a57-81f9-623e3b818111 that can confirm her birth date and nothing else. Nothing else even remotely reliable or substantial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttps://twitter.com/CamcamKennedy

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdXIvPlSn7Gpu3v6snjHMxw

[3] ttp://www.fanpop.com/clubs/cameron-kennedy

[4] ttp://www.freshtvinc.com/blog/happy-birthday-cameron-kennedy/

[5] "Function of Copulatory Vocalizations in Mate Choice by Females of Japanese Macaques (Macaca fuscata) - Abstract - Folia Primatologica 1995, Vol. 64, No. 3 - Karger Publishers". karger.com.

[6] "Copulatory vocalizations of female macaques (Macaca fascicularis): Variability factors analysis". springer.com.

[7] "Evidence to Suggest that Copulatory Vocalizations in Women Are Not a Reflexive Consequence of Orgasm". springer.com.

[8] WJ Hamilton 3rd. "Copulatory vocalizations of chacma baboons (Papio ursinus), gibbons (Hylobates hoolock), and humans". sciencemag.org.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]