Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 May 16 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. withdraw the afd pending rewriting. If it needs nominating again, it can be nominated again. This is why I do not delete singlehanded: group decisions work better in improving the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP[edit]

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The was listed by another editor for Speedy deletion, as G11, entirely promotional. Though I think it is highly promotional in effect, it is written in a relatively neutral tone. I think it should be deleted, but I would be more comfortable in deleting this after a group decision. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Although you wouldn't know it from the article, this law firm is the renamed successor of the controversial securities plaintiff's firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia and Geller, previously led by William Lerach. [1] They're still prominent in the area--note the hundreds of hits in the Wall Street Journal [2] and New York Times [3]. On the other hand I appreciate DGG's concerns about the article. I'm reserving my !vote for the time being.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought I recognized some of the names.... I should have checked further. The obvious thing to do is a combined article. We usually use the most recent name in such cases, but if the earlier name is the better known, perhaps it should be used. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with re-write: I can see why it was nom'd. There is a promotional tone to it, but the firm itself does seem notable enough, especially with some of the coverage the bigger cases got. DGG, would you be open to putting the nom on hold while I take a crack at toning down the promotional aspects and maybe shortening the listings of big cases and award puffery? I'm not aiming to combine it with the Lerach article at this point.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 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. The consensus is that the subject of the article is not notable at this point as academic, and the discussion was whether he is notable according to WP:GNG. Although some sources have been found, I am afraid the consensus is that they are insufficient to create notability as described by WP:GNG. I have no problems with moving the article to the draft; if there is any interest in working on the draft please ask me or any other administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kodjo Adabra[edit]

Kodjo Adabra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Google search "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" (weeding out results for an actor identified by IMDB[4]) returns 61 hits, only one appearing to be independent of him. That article has one paragraph about him along with one about several other West Africa-born authors. The source cited in the article is the student newspaper at the school where he is an assistant professor. The books listed likewise haven't attracted any substantial coverage that I can find in independent sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may consider his three published novels and his Doctoral Dissertation as notable works, he is a notable figure within African Literature, and should not be deleted just because my Wiki creating skills are still new (this is my first page, I am going as fast as I can, but I need to sleep now, thank you all for your critique, and my apologies for the sloppiness, I will continue soon)
The books have all been part of colloquiums and presentations at universities, and carry imortance regardless of the fact that no outside news source has written on them in mainstream media, they have attracted the attention of individuals and I will do my best to link internet references where possible.
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, it is a place for information of value, and this author has fled from a terrifying regime and found refuge to continue his writing, and you want to tell me it is 'not significant'? he got hunted out of his home country for being a critic of his government. He may not be the only person speaking on these issues, but his story is certainly significant, and he is a person of significance.
JuThere is plenty of information from independent sources out there, and although it is not worth much I will point out that the Lamron is a student-run organization that operates independently (though of course it focuses on the news of the campus, naturally)I will add more when I wake up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largo Plazo: interestingly, the same search you linked me here at "kodjo adabra" -"Jean Philippe Kodjo Adabra" [5] returns 1,510 results. For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law. also notably, I may not be able to see some sources that are available to you in the U.S. or in other countries [6], and as a result, as I continue to expand this article through the help of Google from my location, anyone who can expand it from the U.S. may find success unique to mine, as I have no access to proxy servers located in the U.S.
Nolanpowers (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The typical Google results listing promises some large number of pages (I see 1,500 in this case), but once you start paging through you find that the list has ended prematurely with a note, "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 65 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." Again in this case, I click the link to show the "omitted results", and that brings me up to 139. The results given appear generally to be in the nature of inclusion in listings of authors or academics, contact information, acknowledgments, program schedules, and notes from the institutions where he has studied or worked. Take a look, by the way, at WP:ROUTINE. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The results of your Google Scholar search include three works that are by him, one by a mentee of his, two people thanking him for his support, one program schedule, one blurb from his own university indicating his nomination to serve as a peer reviewer for a publication, and one possibly substantial mention in this paper, though I have no way to tell how substantial it is without registering to use the site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "For your information I am currently located in France and obviously have different results visible to me, as Google holds itself to international law", no law prevents Google from displaying France-based results to a user in the United States. I run searches like this all the time, and routinely receive plenty of listings from countries all over the world. For comparison, search results for "mongo beti" include pages from Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Japan, Italy, and South Africa (that is, from top-level domains .ca, .uk, .fr, .de, .no, .jp, .it, and .za). —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively Weak Delete possibly Move to Draft namespace. I originally contested the A7 speedy deletion of the page (and I contend that being a political prisoner and published author is an assertion of importance). But upon further examination of the subject, I cannot find enough sources to justify the notability of the subject. I am slightly surprised at the lack of articles covering him outside of some student newspapers, but that is no excuse. I'm going to hold out as a weak delete in part because there might be some sources in french on the subject that we are over looking and in part because I feel bad for the new editor, who is having a rough first wikipedia experience. I think moving the articles to the draft namespace and having them go through the AfC process might be a possibility to see if more sources can be found over time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Page author wants it moved to draft space, so I believe that is the best course of action. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'Move to draft namespace or delete (but preferably move to draft.) He is an assistant professor of French at a minor university, which is either WP:TOOSOON or simply not notable. I've tried searching for mentions of his novels in French, but I get webstores selling it, not secondary sources. The only secondary sources that do come up are university departmental web sites, a student newspaper, and a travel web site. It's not nothing, but it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • move to draft namespace or reluctant weak delete editor here, I contest that the Tennessee and Geneseo independently edited student newspapers are not notable secondary sources that add to the notability of this living biography page, my thanks to all for your patience on this first effort, I have not yet exhausted all research paths. I will have more difficulty than ever trying to find sources from Togo, I did not expect to need any of them, buy I think he made the newspapers on two occasions at least for his academic work that was considered intolerable activism in essence. Obviously I have a few things to consider, and I would only ask that if it must be deleted, may I be provided with a copy of the work in the creation for my own purposes until sufficient additional sources are in hand. Nolanpowers (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just out of praxis, mentioning that I translated this article here[7] into English (partially, and quickly, but with plans to return and smooth it over) and just today in going back, I not that in the French version, which already existed before I came along, and appears to be an established page, has interesting lack of notability to my (likely untrained) eye, why is this? is it because of association with it's author that gives it implied importance? I bring this up because in the English version that I created, emulating the French version through translation, was flagged as needing sources, so of course, I told myself, I will go and get them from the page that already is established in French, yet i was surprised to find the only source listed was an external link to the publication itself, the original source, and it's self description that provided the information for the wiki article. My apologies to the French article creators if me bringing this up gets this deleted, as I found the information useful, and I do not see why Wiki limits itself in regards to providing useful, encyclopedic style information on anything, even if the legitimate secondary sources are indicative of a rather small splash from his work so far, they remain significantly independent secondary sources, although it is true this sort of third world activism brought to the U.S. is common, and many academics usually stop their references at bigger names such as Jamaica Kincaid, to the people of Togo he has a unique role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanpowers (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to move to draft space as there is no practical possibility of an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating editor here again, lookin at article Joseph-Paul Strebler and it's one source that is questionably independent; comparing this biographical article with Kodjo Adabra's here. In light of this established page, I believe the two editorially independent student organized newspapers that have published on Kodjo Adabra, one on multiple occasions, as created in the article establishes sufficient notability as required. Furthermore the influence of this persons primary source, original works, writings mostly, have had observable repercussions, as is mentioned in the secondary source articles on this person. Some of these primary sources, for example the essay from his alma mater University of Lomé that appeared a threat to powers, are available, but I have not yet recovered them. The one source listen on the example page of an apparently acceptable establishment of sources to meet wiki criteria for notability of a simple missionary and bishop,Joseph-Paul Strebler , has only the religious establishments record book online noting this persons positions held withing the church at various times[8]. Comparatively, it seems quite inconceivable that this page, Kodjo Adabra, be considered for deletion, at least to me, although if this is due to the fact that I am new and this is my second week of creating only on Wiki, then please specify where my focus has mislead me, or what my blind-spot is, please be specific. Thank you all for your patience. Nolanpowers (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think editorial independence is all there is to it. It's WP:ROUTINE for school papers to cover what's going on at the school. IMO that isn't indicative of any notability at large. Others may disagree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Creating editor here again. It is his authorship that makes him notable, and of course there is a lot that comes with that, as all of the articles note, and your rebuttle, @Largo Plazo: doesn't address the entirely independent article from the undoubtedly well-known and notable traveltowestafrica.com[9], the domain of a magazine that describes itself as a magazine on 'lifestyle, times and tourism in the West African Sub Region'. Therefore the article should be kept; while some input on this talk page has been successful in approaching a conclusion, instead of some of the very cold and/or bureaucratic bits of input I am getting ,( which seem confusing to me and I don't know if I am just being tested as a new creator like it is some rite of passage to have to fight for, or if there are just hidden points of discrimination by some editors) recognition of clear established notability. I am also curious as to why my comparison of this page with the other page, Joseph-Paul Strebler was not addressed, and if is this not the right place to address this, then where might I find someone more informed on wikipedia, with an understanding of the process of reaching a final determination in cases of disputed notability.Nolanpowers (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I keep trying to explain to you: people are not deemed notable in the sense that the word is used on Wikipedia just because they've written a book @Largoplazo:*Comment I do not mean to assert this, nor is it my asserted premise for notabilityNolanpowers (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC). They are deemed notable if they actually receive note as a result of it. I am really not trying to test you. You just appear determined not to digest the sincere explanations I've been giving you. Regarding the Strebler article, you ask a good question: should that article be deleted? Perhaps it should. His notability isn't clear from the article. There's only one source, and Google returns no information that appears to qualify him for WP:N. Feel free to go ahead and submit that article for deletion. I may do so after a little more analysis, if only because the article has been there for a while and I want to be sure I don't miss previous discussion that may shed light on why it's still there. (I thought I'd already pointed you to the article about the perils of comparing articles!) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the answer for you about Strebler: WP:CLERGY, notability criteria particularly applicable to clergy. "The bishops of major denominations are usually notable. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Communion bishops are generally found to be notable." —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - my apologies, I do feel quite strongly that this is a notable article in accordance with Wiki's guidelines nonetheless. The notes about the Strebler article from WP:CLERGY do not justify notability in itself, as in the quote is says "usually" and Strebler does not appear to be a character of notability at all, yet you are willing to let that article stay based on this one criteria that is met (he's with the church), and a criteria that does not even establish notability, but as defined by wiki, just "usually" does so. I am not trying to delete the Strebler article, for me, this "usually" is good enough, and the fact that there is only 1 source listed on the entire page does not pose any problems to me here, nor has it posed anyone else any issue to raise that might lead to deletion. Thank you for , the perils of comparing articles, however, as a new creator, I find this is the easiest way to approach the problem, as the depths of 'how to create' in Wiki seems endless, and very little of it applies to this current effort of mine. I'm eternally grateful to all who have more experience than me and are joining in to make this a legitimate decision, however, I feel like I am learning more about how to find useless details that could render my observations of notability as defined by wiki. For example one of his articles was deleted based on copyright infringement, this despite the fact that I cited the reference that allows for use of this material within public domains (including wiki), so in light of this, before I just accuse everyone of racism or something equally worthless, I would like to plea to those more skilled and experience in Wiki than I to stop treating this like a trial where just because the article is a black man means it's guilty of no worthiness (I'm joking). The article has 3 independent sources (so far listed on the article, and with more coming, I promise, they do exist, but paper is less convenient that a website so please be patient) reporting on his works. I would kindly ask those of you who seem so determined to reject this article to actually read the sources first, you will see that they are not simply 'routine', and should not be written of as non-notable based on wiki's definition of 'routine articles'
WP:CLERGY says that for Wikipedia's purposes a person is deemed notable by virtue of being an bishop. It doesn't say to apply only the same guidelines as everyone else despite the fact that he's a bishop. Anyway, I already indicated that if not for that, the article would be eligible for deletion. So I don't know what you intended to get out of pressing it further. Your goal here was to understand why the article you created was different from this one, not to exercise your determination to have that article deleted. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rest, you lost me at "racism". I suggest you read WP:Assume good faith, fast, and not even think to throw out a suggestion of such a motivation on someone else's part with absolutely no basis. That you would even think to suggest that here without having ever looked to see whether I was treating your articles any differently from the way I've treated hundreds of others and without noticing the articles about Africans and people of African origin that I've helped along is despicable. I sincerely hope you don't think that's an acceptable way to get your way in life. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Largoplazo: you obviously did not read carefully enough ONCE AGAIN! my old friend! how your reading skills betray you ! at the end of the sentence, just for people who have similar difficulties in reading as you have displayed here, I will point out that at the end of that sentence in parenthesis, you will see the words "I'm joking"! believe it or not, in English, this phrase means the the things previously said were not actually serious, but rather said in good humour, with the intention of a laugh, to humans, laughter is enjoyable, I assume you will be happy to learn, and the idea that racism would be a real accusation after what has been said, is obviously absurd, ridiculous, laughable. However the article is about a black person, and I understand some people get nervous around racism (even as a terribly obvious joke) so I assume you will be happy to know that I am ready to forgive and forget. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For starters: Funeka Soldaat, Khayelitsha, Vulcan Society, ID Africa, Regions of Senegal. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Every reference in the article so far but one is either from a school he was at , written by him, or presented by him. I maintain that if a person's note hasn't spread beyond his own campus, then he hasn't genuinely achieved note in the greater world. Before you accuse me of racism again for having said that, kindly check on the many, many other articles about which I've had similar discussions to see whether you think I am approaching this any differently from any other article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for @Largoplazo: the schools did not write the articles,and just to make extra double triple sure you get it, i was joking... I don't actually accuse you of racism... please read more carefully, your sloppy reading is causing a strain on our relationship, as you have repeatedly implicitly accused me of things, and as a person (with emotions) I am finding it very difficult to bear you as a sufferance. Nolanpowers (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read plenty carefully, including the part where you then said you were joking. But I assumed enough good faith in you that if accusing me earnestly of racism was the farthest thing from your mind, then you would have the sense to know it isn't something one should even joke about. Sorry, but that sort of "joke" is bound to backfire.
  • final point, if he were a clergyman, making his article notable, as we seem to all agree, the other points of note regarding his biography, as sourced, are worth noting in such an article. These sources have been acknowledged as independent on at least 3 separate occasions so far. As the creating editor, I am hoping for good faith of the community while I continue gathering further, less accessible, secondary sources, to augment the notability, in accordance with Wikipedia's purpose. Thank you all for contributing, it has been I believe roughly a week, and as a new user, I am looking forward to learning how this might proceed. Also I apologize profusely for what I imagine must be an abomination of format to more experienced users than I. Thank you. Nolanpowers (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops @Winner 42: sorry about that! Mea culpa. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, else move to draft or user space: The subject appears to just about meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC thanks to coverage in two (editorially independent) campus newspapers, The Daily Beacon [10] and The Lamron [11][12]. If they're not sufficiently substantial, Nolanpowers believes there are further sources they can find to establish notability, and I see no reason to deny them the chance. —me_and 09:14, 29 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, ― Padenton|✉   21:30, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since his books are written in French I tried locating him in French literary magazines, but I don't know enough about them to have success. I also tried Le Monde, but that may have been silly on my part. I got the ISBN for his book "L'Exile" (ISBN 978-2351700228) and it is for sale at amazon.fr and FNAC. However, that's all I could find. Someone with better knowledge of French book review sources might have better luck. Also, his editor is listed as "Syracuse" but I can't find a French publishing house by that name, so I may be looking in the wrong place. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist, discussion leaning towards delete, but still unclear. Esquivalience t 23:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 23:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a current tally of the !votes so consensus can be better reached Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than DGG's revised !vote, below, there is a clear consensus that the article isn't suitable for article space, even if that goes only so far as moving it to draft or user space. That's fine with me as well. It isn't as though it's promotional or about a person of no consequence or an inadequately sourced BLP so that it must be eradicated from this site. I agree that the man is noteworthy; as soon as there's evidence of his having received substantial note outside of his immediate academic sphere, it will be fitting to have an article about him in the main article space. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm changing to keep on the basis of his editorship of Peuples noirs peuples africains. I didn;'t spot that initially; the frWP article has been here from 2008, and I'll defer to it. I also see that the periodical is in 62 worldcat libraries. Considering the very low holdings of even good US academic libraries on Francophone Africa, that's substantial. I continue to think there's no point moving to draft unless there's the prospect of more information, but I don't see how I can really object to that as a compromise. This leaves no one but the nom wanting to delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular notability guideline you're going by when you cite this editorship as the basis for your revised !vote? Note that French Wikipedia may have different guidelines from English Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is uniform in it's guidelines, it exists as one concept and one community, many members have an active presence in multiple languages, and they hold to a uniform community standard of WP across the inevitable differences that come with having different languages. Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admire the confident manner in which you stated this, but it's incorrect. This becomes obvious when you look at the guidelines across Wikipedias and see that each project's guidelines are discussed and updated independently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I was flagged to revisit this AFD) Curious about that policy. WP:ACADEMIC certainly specifies: "head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area" Is this an academic or a political journal? (fuzzy border, but still...) Was he head editor? AND, is this a policy that applies to editors of major political journals? (an issue in current AFD on Eamon Delaney).E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. On that basis I'd have to say that would alter my stance—if he is indeed the editor of Peuples noirs, peuples africains and if that is indeed a major journal in its field. However, I don't see where User:DGG got the idea that Adabra is or has been the editor of that journal. He has contributed to it, according to the article this discussion is about. But there isn't a single article on French Wikipedia, to which DGG referred, that mentions both that journal and Adabra; the only article there that mentions Adabra is fr:Liste d'écrivains africains par pays. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain' I'm not sure where I got the editorship from either, looking back. Sorry for being indecisive. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've written to Kodjo, as he is a former professor of mine, and his literature and his person inspired me to create this originally, I do not believe he held an editing role for PNPA, however it is possible I am mistaken and I will follow up with any additional infos that are available. I'm certain that PNPA is highly regarded and very well known in the academic world, although it's subject is closely involved with politics, it is, to the francophone world, and outside as well, a very important publication of historic note, as the WP article in French displays.Nolanpowers (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time to close this as delete, for the reasons I stated above in my iVote. Although I, User:Largoplazo, User:DGG, and - to his credit - the article's creator User:Nolanpowers have made extensive searches in French and English, no one has turned up sources to support keeping under WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROFESSOR or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of community consensus where only 1, the nom, your, Largoplazo, is the only vote that remains calling just for deletion? Have you even read the other contributions to this AfD page? how about my comments on your talk page? how about the multiple calls for keep, and the fact that WP:GNG is met or WP:PEOPLE , through what right does your ignorance whether by intent or mistake give you any say to declare this a 'consensus'? Criteria have been met that define this article as meeting WP article standards. All you appear to be doing is clogging the AfD page with spams that ignore the establishment provided. You are literally the only one out of 6 votes that calls for outright delete, and you are the nominator! that is outrageous! The matter should be resolved by DGG's revised vote, as he explicitly states, in his reason for voting outright keep, the article meets criteria. You can't just go around deleting articles for no reason at all, and certainly not to get some sense of personal sense of closure for yourself! Are you an admin or what sort of power do you have that allows you to think you can behave so abusively for reasons that remain unexplained. You say you explained it in your iVote but your iVote did not explain anything that would justify deletion and additionally, your rather off topic comments/concerns about the article have been responded to, although you seem to have ignored these responses. Nolanpowers (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote tally and starting motioning towards conclusion @Largo_Plazo. The final bullet point that seems mostly to do with where within the thoroughly defined WP:CLASSES the AfD is, and as the creator, my thoughts on the subject won't be mentioned as they shouldn't have weight (mentioned in WP:CLASSES. As far as your assertion on consensus, we can be certain at least their is not unanimity, between two keeps, both revised; my own as the creator, and DGG, who has my thanks for his skillful observation as he notes to us in why he changed his !vote, as for the others who have contributed a !vote, excluding nom, the consensus leans toward move to draft, roughly weighing the 3 votes that remain we can see they all include 'move to draft' and two users have also included 'weak keep' in preference and 'or delete' as editors with mind open to find multiple potential decisions harmonious, or in their accord, the respect user in their written !vote contributions. My sincere thanks again to all thought and care to all here.Nolanpowers (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... how about the multiple calls for keep?" The only unreserved call for Keep seems to be yours (and I'm ignoring your attempts to make it look like there were three more of them). There's also a weak one. "... the fact that WP:GNG is met ..." You feel that way, but I've explained why I disagree. I don't feel I'm being unreasonable in my skepticism that someone whose coverage has thus far been restricted to his own institutions meets WP:GNG. It isn't a "fact" that WP:GNG has been met. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USER:DGG has voted delete. And that User:Nolanpowers is a new WP:SPA who rapidly created this article and also articles (speedily deleted) on Adabra's novels. Even so, the core problem remains that no one has found reliable sources, coverage in undergraduate newspaper is not sufficient.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USER:DGG has voted keep, his !vote was slashed out for reasons that I can't figure out but he even explains why he changed his iVote to keep, from his original vote, which was delete, but he admitted it was for hasty reasons that overlooked qualities of the person that qualify him to WP standards, you can see his reasoning above. Additionally, the fact that there are multiple student run journals, and they are both editorially independent, is by WP definition a legitimate secondary source, and the articles all have this man as the focus of the article, these journals should not be discriminated against simply because the editors are students who do this for free and not to make a living or whatever other reason you might seek out in your fight to discount the fact they are legitimate secondary sources. Also you are ignoring the secondary source that is entirely independent, granted it is only a simple travel magazine on it's website form, but all things considered, one must admit this HAS SIGNIFICANCE in it's publication on Adabra, and it is a qualifying secondary source. You have also entirely excluded DGG's reasoning as to why he changed his vote, which can be found above, and I know the page is a mess and that certainly in part may be caused by my newish-ness here but simply put, the aggressive deletion of any new page has not allowed the time for me to defend all of the articles I have put up. I should also point out that under the current secondary sources and the keep votes from me_and, DGG, and myself the one who opened the article, there is no justification for deleting this article, and while one of those votes is my own, that does remain a total of 3 that give a 'keep' or 'weak keep' as part of their vote. Nolanpowers (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG struck out his own "keep" with this edit after I pointed out that the basis he'd given for it was a misimpression. When you talk about how I'm excluding the reason DGG had given for changing his vote to "keep", you're overlooking his subsequent acknowledgement that his reason was the misimpression that I had pointed it out to be and that he had then changed his mind.
I didn't say anything about "discriminating against" the student papers on the grounds that the editors are students who do it for free, so that's a strawman argument on your part. You can talk about their "editorial independence" as much as you want, and if you want to consider that sufficient, that's fine, you've had your "keep" !vote. And I'll keep noting that the "editorially independent" media that have shown interest in his story nevertheless just somehow seem to be restricted to Adabra's immediate academic sphere. I consider that significant in determining real "independence", so, therefore, I have cast my "delete" !vote.
Yes, there is the Authors: Made in West Africa article. That's one source from outside his own immediate institutional sphere. A few more like that and there would be no argument for denying his notability.
By the way, see WP:!VOTE, because I don't think you've picked up on the reason for the exclamation points, which are used in boolean logic to represent "not". They aren't really conventional votes, because it isn't strictly majority rule. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove article and userfy or move to draft so article creator can keep trying, if he or she wishes. Quis separabit? 11:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I changed my vote above from "Move to draft namespace or delete, to a simple delete. Reason is that Nom was so insistent that I went back and searched again. Searched for his work in French. Looked as tthe sources. There simply is no claim to notability. If this person's work becomes notable, an article can be started at that time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If some of the most thorough searchers (DGG/E.M.Gregory) cannot find sources to show it's notable, then it definitely isn't. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. No point going to userspace, as it seems they'll never be notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing back to delete, some of the best editors have been unable to find anything to pass notability guidelines, so it likely will never pass them unless the subject receives significant coverage in the future. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The two student newspapers provide detailed coverage of the subject, but they are affiliated with the subject because they are from people closely affiliated with his institution. This article from Travel To West Africa is an independent source that provides a paragraph of coverage about the subject but is not enough by itself to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    No prejudice to userfying and restoring if new sources surface in the future that establish notability.

    Cunard (talk) 03:26, 30 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 per CSD A7 and G11 - there were no credible claims of notability, and it was an ad for this business. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CodexWorld.com[edit]

CodexWorld.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and no evidence of passing WP:WEB either. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:32, 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. slakr\ talk / 02:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Layla[edit]

DJ Layla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any particular indication of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO. As of now, our "sources" are a blog post and some cruft, which hardly count as the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" demanded by the relevant guidelines. - Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Charting on a national chart passes WP:MUSIC GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree: WP:NMUSIC is a guideline; it says right in the introduction that someone meeting the criteria "may be notable". Now, if we had "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician", that would make the subject notable, especially when combined with the charted song. But given that all we have are scraps of trivia, and that the single evidence for charting we have is this, the very essence of cruft — well, that's a pretty thin reed on which to hang a claim of notability. So thin, I would say, that it snaps under any sort of scrutiny. Given that no reliable sources have bothered to cover the subject in any sort of depth, there really isn't any reason for us to do so. - Biruitorul Talk 02:58, 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, Esquivalience t 23:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is not completely true what Biruitorul is saying. The evidence for charting is given also by this article on a romanian newspaper and this on a moldovan newspaper. Also if you do some search on the internet you can see that this single has a good impact even in occidental europe like you can see on this award. --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passing mention in a local newspaper, a blog post on the site of a tabloid, and a bit of cruft are hardly at the level of sourcing expected for a singer of encyclopedic caliber. - Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Biruitorul, I guess that in your opinion only Mozart or Elvis are "of encyclopedic caliber". I doubt that DJ Layla is less notable than other DJs from Category:DJs. She is mentioned by many sources, including http://www.mtv.ro/video/interviu/interviu-cu-dj-layla-si-alissa-la-galeria-115.html, ProTV Chișinău ([14]) or bestmusic.ro (6th music site in Romania, with 45,000 unique visitors/week). 217.31.41.8 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taking part in a softball "interview" on MTV is not an indication of notability; neither is routine coverage (about the subject's marriage, or a show, or other news items of passing interest). - Biruitorul Talk 13:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So here is another source that I hope is enough. An award for the most airplayed song on Radio România Actualităţi, which is one of the major radio in Romania. –Paul Gascoigne (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. That is not an independent source - it's on the site of the station that handed out the award - and the lack of substantive coverage ("multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician") continues to be an issue. - Biruitorul Talk 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Changed from Comment, see below) The source for the chart positions (top40-charts.com) is listed at Wikipedia:Record charts#Websites to avoid. The prize awarded by the radio station as their most played song might pass WP:MUSBIO #11. At the Euro Dance Web award the song ended up at #7. To pass WP:MUSBIO #2, it would need a better source for End-Year Chart 2009 (Romania). The current source has a text about the chart and mentions the song (in last position), but no listing. Most of the info (like peak position) is not in the source. Kraxler (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is not that easy to find better sources on the internet for Romanian top charts. But anyway, here is another source which is already used widely on en.wikipedia as a source for Romanian Top 100. Here you can see that this song was actually on the romanian charts for quite a long number of weeks and peaked at number 2. Hope that now the page can be considered enciclopedic. (unlogged Paul Gascoigne) –82.41.253.166 (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although that is a blog, I deem it reliable. Under the circumstances (no official Romanian single chart anymore), this seems to be a true archive of the charts as published at the time when they were official. The musician passes WP:MUSBIO #2, notability has been established. It would be nice, though, to find and add some sources with more info about DJ Layla herself. Kraxler (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is notable, though article needs serious improvement, as do the articles of many other eastern European artists.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:54, 27 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) 01:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranic dynasties and countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Iranic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely nonsensical article. The title is "Iranic dynasties and countries", whilst there is no such thing as "Iranic countries". Second, the article uses 0 references and uses Wikipedia redirecting links as sources. Thirdly, the title doesn't congruent with what the article states. The article includes all former empires and dynasties that were either of one of the Iranian peoples or adopted an "Iranian language". There's no such concept nor source that confirms the info/content in this article in the slightest, except maybe for some Pan-Iranist "sources". The concept of the article is an irredentist self-made OR theory, and therefore, does not belong on Wikipedia. LouisAragon (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- This is not patent nonsense. I am not wholly convinced of its merits, provided the criterion is that an Iranic language is spoken by a majority. However today they various Iranic langiuages are not necessarily mutually comprehensible, so that I am not sure that the whole thing has any sigificant coherence. I wonder if we are not looking at an aspiration from Iran to dominate the area where other Iranic languages are spoken. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 4 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) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the rationale I already described above. Besides we already have an already about "Iranian countries and dynasties" which on top of what I wrote make this article again totally redundant and therefore it must be deleted. LouisAragon (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit; we even already have this article List of Iranian dynasties and countries, that has the exact same purpose as this one, except its already fully worked out and references. This article needs to be definetely deleted. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:48, 15 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, Esquivalience t 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a synthesis of information (seemingly) culled from other Wikipedia articles (certainly not from any published secondary or tertiary sources) tied together by Iranian languages and an historic timeline. This seems to me an obscure, tangential variant of WP:OR. Time to delete. Tapered (talk) 02:29, 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. Various sources were pointed to which prove that the fire company exists; however, no one argued that those sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. If someone wants to try to construct a referenced article about this subject, I will userfy on request. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Fire Company[edit]

Croydon Fire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references at all, mass de-PROD-ding –Be..anyone (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. This potential official site is effectively dead; this sort-of official Facebook page is for #11 and shows this website, which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: this one, and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: this one. Stories like this are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg here and here - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Sitush: yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I've just done a search of JSTOR, Muse and various other paywalled academic resources. I didn't expect to find anything and, well, there was nothing. Epeefleche has basically come up with what I've found on Google, which is mostly listings in various types of directory and passing mentions in news stories when the CFC was in attendance at incidents, most of which seem to be run-of-the-mill work for a outfit of their type. I do not have access to newspapers.com - has anyone trawled that? What we're looking for is background stories that elaborate on the history, on the changes in equipment and senior personnel etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See here, and here, and here. But I would delete all uncited material. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zackmann -- that's true, as it stands now. Refs could be added, if this is kept, from the above links I've supplied. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 21 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, ― Padenton|✉   21:32, 29 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 23:13, 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) 07:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Varma (actor)[edit]

Ajay Varma (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:NACTOR. He only played a minor role in Nandanavanam 120km perhaps WP:TOOSOON Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park Survival Enhanced Edition[edit]

Jurassic Park Survival Enhanced Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article seems trivial. It lacks references and notability. A Google search mostly brings up links to forums where people have discussed it. I don't think any of its information would be of value to anyone who does not intend on playing the game. I also don't believe the information is really noteworthy enough to be mentioned at the List of Jurassic Park video games article. InGenuine (talk) 21:42, 15 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) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Game map article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS refs. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. BenLinus1214talk 00:35, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pightley Manor[edit]

Pightley Manor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For similar reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westbury Nernewtes; a former manor that, according to the listed sources (this one in particular) no longer has any extant manorial property. No indications that this particular location or the associated manorial title is in any way notable. Drm310 (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For exactly the same reasons as the other one, a title that doesn't have land is in no way notable, and fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it currently has land no bearing on its notability. We should be asking, was it ever notable, perhaps in its heyday? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference provided by Drm310 shows that there was such a manor in 1066, but it was absorbed into neighboring manors many centuries ago. The only current usage seems to be that someone has purchased the title "Lord and Lady of Pightley Manor, Somerset".[15] IMO there is not enough information about the one-time manor to write an article or establish its notability, and the existence of the lordship/ladyship titles proves nothing at all. It appears to be of great interest to User:Pightley (see their userpage) but is of no interest to Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There does appear to be a neighborhood in Somerset County known as "Pightley Somerset".[16][17] Maybe somebody could create an article about this placename if they feel so inclined, and it could mention the manor as a source of the name. However, I think this article needs to be blown up and any neighborhood article started afresh. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edenfest[edit]

Edenfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One-time event, which appears not to be notable. Notability tag has been there 6 years, feel like it's definitely time to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 25 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 03:50, 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) 20:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the last two entries. I think that there is enough coverage to indicate notability. Plus 55,000 attendees may vaguely remember the event although they may not tell their children.--Rpclod (talk) 20:56, 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 (Non-Admin Closure). Consensus seemed clear after debate relisted. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Scholar Under Siege[edit]

A Scholar Under Siege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable opera, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose The opera may or may not be notable, but the composer is, as principal chair in a major orchestra. We do not have an article on him; it seems a strange chocie to have written this article instead of the more obvious one. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with this, an article for an opera makes no sense, maybe there should be one about the person instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 8 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) 18:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The Bynum article was widely covered via AP. I added a few additional references. Arguably there are enough reliable sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Keep. DGG, the Augusta Symphony Orchestra is not remotely a "major orchestra". It's an amateur/semi-professional "community orchestra". Being its principal keyboardist (at one time), does not make the composer notable. Indeed, the only aspect of him that is notable is this opera which, per Rpclod probably passes GNG. Having said that, despite the initial houha, it does not appear to have ever been performed again or professionally recorded. In any case, I think it would be a mistake to repurpose this article to a bio of its composer. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore, You are of course right, I was thinking of Atlanta. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkalp Energy[edit]

Sunkalp Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional and non notable. Every one of the references is a press release, sometimes a declared press release. . "Your story" is essentially a PR site, and the others are no better. " to spread awareness about the energy deficit in Uttar Pradesh and raise support for sustainable rural electrification" is typical promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. Not very confident in citations other than YourStory. However seems little bit notable. Mr RD 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mention in Bloomberg is very trivial. No other sources establish notability in this obviously paid for article. YourStory is a known publisher of Paid News and cannot be used as a reliable source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:45, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - two press releases, two articles and one deadlink. Does not appear to be enough reliable sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now Delete The main source of articles reads like promotion as much or more than plain reporting or information. More from mainstream or, at least, disinterested sources would clinch the deal. This may be a case of "too soon," for an enterprise that may one day pass the WP:N test. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now until better sourcing can occur, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from one press release. This is a good cause but unfortunately there isn't sufficient coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City Bounty Hunters[edit]

Oklahoma City Bounty Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable football team per WP:ORG. The sources are WP:ROUTINE and I'm not seeing anything that would make it pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk  03:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tavix | Talk  04:01, 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, Monty845 18:18, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dapo Ladimeji[edit]

Dapo Ladimeji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication here or on Scholar or G-News of the sort of notability needed to have an article here, no coverage in independent sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are references in Google News - Google scholar, and Jstor. There is coverage in BBC programs. 'Beware of Gates Bearing Gifts' has been influential in changing Microsoft policy - it provoked a Wall Street Journal investigation and expose of Microsoft tactics in Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention his work is referred to/cited in "Post Colonial Criticism (Longman Critical Readers)" by Professor Bart Moore-Gilbert (see his entry in wikipedia) et al.. a standard academic reference work in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napata102 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - forgot to sign (did not know how to!) Napata102 (talk) 19:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the misunderstanding is time based. In 1999 major international organisations such as World Bank etc were all advocating that Africa did not need new ICT or internet. It was the article by Mr Ladimeji arguing that Africa needed new technologies and internet to survive that brought him to the attention of UN Agencies [22] . He was then invited to speak at UN agency conferences and to write position papers that in large part led to wholesale change of opinion by African governments and international agencies that internet and ICT were crucial to the survival of (poor) African countries. Today everyone knows this is true so it is difficult to imagine there was a time when the World Bank argued the opposite. For example donors were arguing in 1999: '‘Penicillin before Pentium! In poor, resource challenged environments, priority must be given to food and health needs, ICT is an inappropriate, unaffordable luxury." (http://www.open.ac.uk/deep/Public/web/publications/pdfs/JLeach2005-DSAAC.pdf) He had a tough job to change opinion at such major institutions and that is why he was invited to UN Conferences. His campaign was so successful people no longer remember that once they thought it was a good idea to prevent poor countries from getting new ICT or internet access. Napata102 (talk) 22:59, 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, North America1000 00:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary-soured spammy WP:ADMASQ. Wikipedia is not Linked-In. Pax 05:00, 8 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, Monty845 18:17, 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 No Consensus (Non-Admin Closure) (WP:NPASR). Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid[edit]

Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks promotional and with this name you cannot find more than 6 results outside en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - The four RS in the article plus this one[1] which I found without much trouble, seems to meet the Notability requirement, particularly considering he is a Nigerian cleric without much international footprint. All of the articles are independent and even talk about different events/subjects. There is no question he is notable in Nigeria per WP:GNG. . For instance he was part of a panel on women and violence free elections in Nigeria [2] Transcripts of his comments there and at Islamic Movement (Nigeria) might be useful to expand the article if someone can get them. This is from about five minutes of searching.
  1. ^ "Muslim Cleric Urges Peaceful Co-Existence In Nigeria".
  2. ^ "Violence-free Election: The Role Of Muslim Women".
Jbh (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck 'Speedy'. Nothing speedy about this one. JbhTalk 21:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Chief imam of an apparently major mosque in Nigeria's capital - while this in itself does not guarantee notability, it still somewhat suggests that an apparent lack of sources may be a problem of WP:BIAS. In this case, I rather wonder whether the nominator only looked for sources using the full article title - which would have been problematic in at least two ways here, firstly because "Sheikh" is an honorific rather than part of the subject's name and is frequently either replace by another honorific ("Imam", for instance) or omitted altogether, and secondly because Muhammed is such a common name in many Muslim societies that it is often omitted when referring to a person. In this case, it also turns out that a number of sources refer to him as Nuru Khalid rather than Nura Khalid - these [23] [24] [25], for instance. Reliable sources are not quite as plentiful as I would like, but this often seems to be the case even with major Muslim religious figures, at least outside Europe and North America. PWilkinson (talk) 22:18, 16 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 18:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The editors above have struggled to find sources, but they appear to be unsuitable passing mentions. Pax 21:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that the Nigeria Express/Nigeria Observer articles have gone offline. They were up when I reviewed the article. Unemployment, major cause of insecurity in Nigeria - Cleric, Muslim Cleric Urges Peaceful Co-Existence In Nigeria, and "Anti Gay Legislation: Cleric Commends Jonathan are all specifically about the subject of the article while the other five have comments or passing mentions. Again, this is quite a bit of coverage in international press for a Nigerian cleric. That his opinion is considered worth noting on many subjects, ranging from Gay Rights to Terrorism to Election Reform piques my interest as an editor. When that is combined with how scarce coverage is in Nigeria and the more in depth local coverage (which may not be available online now, but there is no requirement for that) there is a strong indication he is notable in Nigeria which is, after all, all that is required in GNG and in light of BIAS. Jbh (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the two refs at your above keep vote, you had entered a double "http" at the beginning of the URLs, I have fixed it, the articles are accessable now. Kraxler (talk) 00:27, 15 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 08:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article currently includes sources which are passing mentions of this person in other contexts. Without establishing WP:BIO or WP:GNG the article fails WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:50, 13 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, Monty845 18:16, 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. slakr\ talk / 02:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Imeretinsky[edit]

Natasha Imeretinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Certainly fails on NRV and GNG. Insufficient references exist to assert this article's notability. I can only find a single independent reference to Imeretinsky on GoogleBooks refering to her as a hotelier. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Princess royal by blood of the former-Kingdom of Imereti. Article can be expanded in the future. Thus keep. Jaqeli 15:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems extremely unlikely this article will ever be expanded in the future, it has been tagged for almost two years and seen virtually no additional content added since. Do you have an ISBN for the solitary reference? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added the ISBN. More sources can be added. @Kober: any thoughts? Jaqeli 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I don't think that the article is salvageable. Being a scion of the defunct royal house does not itself make the person notable if she is otherwise unknown. So, I would suggest merging the article with Wei Wu Wei. --KoberTalk 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gets zero in news and newspaper searches, and in books I can find one mention in a 1955 travel guide. [26] One possibility is that she is given a different name in some sources, but for that I wouldn't know where to begin. LaMona (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it does not get many results in the net in English does not mean it is not important. She is of royal origin and article can be expanded as there are sources in Georgian. Jaqeli 12:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaqeli, you need to present those sources here for us to see. And if there are no sources in English, but many in Georgian, then perhaps the best place for this article is in a different Wikipedia. Although the rules don't say that the sources have to be in English, a total lack of English sources strikes me as problematic. LaMona (talk) 13:57, 13 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) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article does not suggest that WP:ANYBIO criteria are met. "Royalty" does not appear to receive any special dispensation.--Rpclod (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ideally Jaqeli can post these additional sources if possible. I'm not convinced that the subject is either notable or non-notable, the article makes claims of notability which sound plausible, but need additional sourcing support. That its been tagged for 2 years is of no moment, there are articles which have been tagged for 10 years which are no doubt notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable stub article for low-ranking purported royal. Quis separabit? 12:39, 27 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) — Yash! (Y) 00:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Wright[edit]

Zephyr Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and guidelines for WP:BIO articles per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - A look reveals that a president gave her a pen used to sign an important act. This is not inherited, but actually the subject of the article being part of a huge event. It also shows that Wright is discussed in 3 diverse publications, using these publications as sources, the article can easily be expanded. So yeah. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Classic case of Inherited notability. Surely we don't need articles for employees of politicians? AusLondonder (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   22:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   22:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. She worked for a president, but she was not a Crook. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she's mentioned several times in Robert Caro's multi-volume biographies of LBJ as the muse for the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1964, and 1965. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LBJ used to tell her story to try to convince white senators to support civil rights legislation. I found plenty of sources in Google Books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is just enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate third party coverage to make her a notable figure. Inspirational as well. LBJ clearly influenced by her experiences. Also, a great example of how difficult it can be for people who are women or minorities to get the outside coverage needed. Mention in Caro books is significant. Montanabw(talk) 19:54, 15 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, Monty845 17:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is clearly a notable figure in African-American history and the article is sourced. It does need expansion, but this is not unusual for new articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:57, 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 redirect to Haverhill, Massachusetts. Davewild (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts)[edit]

Haverhill Police Department (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable police department in a small city. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  • Keep. Preposterous nomination. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin due to the very large number of detailed sources in GBooks and elsewhere. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion: it is actually a large city with population 61,000+) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No news stories and every other mention is trivial. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Not notable in itself, probably good for about 2-3 lines in the Haverhill, Massachusetts article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fifty or so sources in GBooks alone are capable of supporting a lot more than two or three lines. I don't think that an encyclopedia should strive to be as simplistic and superficial as possible. It is simply not true that there are no news stories. There are five pages of listings of news stories in GNews, amounting to about fifty news articles. The sources are not all trivial mentions, which means something like an entry in a phonebook, not a large chunk of text in a history book or a law report (they seem to have been involved in a significant case concerning disclosure of information). The municipal ordinances alone will satisfy LGNC. James500 (talk) 17:39, 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) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what? The article one sentence. What is there to merge and why is it useful to redirect if the article will only have one sentence on it? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) One sentence is more enough to justify a redirect. Mere mention is sufficient justification. (2) We can write a lot more than one sentence, since the article is already more than one sentence (we cannot ignore the information in the infobox) and since there are other sources unused in the present article. (3) By the rubric of the guideline WP:R, we only delete plausible redirects if they are clearly positively harmful, and this meets non of the criteria for deletion of redirects. Deleting any plausible redirect is normally incredibly harmful for the reasons outlined at great length in that guideline (including aiding searches, facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving history). James500 (talk) 11:57, 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 redirect to Dracut, Massachusetts. There is a clear consensus here that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, but no agreement on deletion or redirecting so am defaulting to redirect. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dracut Police Department[edit]

Dracut Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A police department in a small city is not something that is notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. No valid rationale for deletion. Being "small" (which is an expression of the nominator's subjective personal opinion) doesn't make it non-notable. Not even theoretically eligible for deletion as a plausible redirect (and merge) to the area it polices (WP:R). James500 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect to town article; fails WP:GNG. No references on the article at all and I couldn't find any either to support keeping it. Elgatodegato (talk) 19:06, 8 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) 17:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid argument against redirection/merger. James500 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content is required to be verifiable, not referenced. This article is too long to be a stub. Strictly speaking, it does have a reference, the department's website, which, IIRC, can be used as a source under ABOUTSELF. James500 (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing on department's website that verifies other than the most basic content (i.e. address), therefore the content is neither referenced or verifiable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I seriously doubt a redirect is even needed - people would type in the search for the town to find out info about its police department and I can't even think of any reason someone would go to Wikipedia for info on this department.... if they wanted their phone number or address, they would go directly to the website. Clearly fails WP:GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other reasons for redirects including facilitating accidental linking, avoiding redlinks, avoiding duplicate articles, preserving page history, avoiding violations of WP:CWW, and so on and so forth. By the rubric of the guideline WP:R, we only delete plausible redirects if they are clearly positively harmful, and this meets non of the criteria for deletion of redirects. People who are interested in 'local history', or in how taxes are being spent, or in whether public services are being run in a satisfactory manner, all of which are matters of widespread interest, will expect to find information about the history etc of this department in Wikipedia and will come looking for it. Not everyone is the sort of anti-intellectual who would only be interested in contact details for reporting a crime. James500 (talk) 17:39, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Danielson[edit]

Stephanie Danielson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Minor bit part actress with no real claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion and respect for other individual opinions on here, "minor bit actress" would be someone such as an extra in a movie or television series, one time appearance in a background camera shot, etc. They're are several references confirming that this actress is a starring lead role actress in the movie "Muck" and she has been credited as a starring lead role actress in other movies as well. She is a lead actress in the movie "Snow" and it's sequels. I am requesting that the page be allowed to grow and not be deleted.--Groulsom (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Groulsom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep The page has a lot of good sources!--Wetmnt1 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Wetmnt1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Note the previous two entries are made by SPA accounts who seem to have a strong interest in promoting the same small group of related articles. IMHO they are very obviously meatpuppets since both rose from dormancy at the same exact time. Ridernyc (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reviewed this article and I feel the article seems to be in order. I can not fined any clear reason why the article should be deleted. --Scantunl (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it's time to start a sockpuppet investigation. Ridernyc (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Ridernyc Have you read Wikipedia's civility policy? The term sockpuppet, meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care. It is clear from my edits and post on the original page that I have been improving this page long before you posted a delete notice on it. Before you call me a name will you provide the proof! I didn't just pop out of thin air like you have claimed. You may get this page deleted if you try hard enough but lets do it for the right reasons, so can you please explain in detail why you feel there's no notability. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • hysterical, yes I know policy please see WP:DUCK it's is blatantly obvious your actions and the actions of the others are linked. Ridernyc (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridernyc could have handled things a little more discreetly and/or diplomatically, but it's not really against policy to voice concerns of sockpuppetry in an AfD. Basically what he's concerned about (the proof) is that you (Wetmnt1) and Groulsom have only edited Wikipedia on things concerning Danielson. Your account was the first that was created and you made the article, but you have no other edits to show that you are here to do anything other than edit about Danielson. Where the concern with sockpuppetry comes in is that Groulsom's account was created a few days after the article was proposed for deletion and they removed the tag. Since the two of you have only made edits concerning this one article, it's a reasonable assumption to suspect that you are either the same person or that you are people that have contact with one another off of Wikipedia that are editing the article. Now if you're sockpuppets (ie, one person) then that's a block straight out of the gate if a check shows that you are the same person (there are ways to check for this). However if you are different people then there may be a little wiggle room here. If you were both asked to come here and edit the article then all you have to do is state up front that the two of you knew each other off Wikipedia and/or were asked by someone (Danielson, her representative) to create the article. Now if you were asked to create the article (like if you were part of a PR or freelance job) then you will also need to state this up front. You can still edit if you have a conflict of interest, but you absolutely must be transparent about this. The same thing goes for if you are part of a group trying to edit a page. You can be blocked for meatpuppetry but this sort of block usually ends up getting made because the accounts were just there to stuff ballots rather than to try to get a concentrated effort to genuinely improve a page based on policy and learn to edit based on policy. In most cases a "meatpuppet" will not argue for a keep based on policy and will not try to learn these policies enough to try to genuinely improve the article. (IE, they'll try to twist policy around based on a small criteria despite several editors saying otherwise.) There's a lot more to it than this and this is already too long as it is, but basically at this point the best thing to do is to be transparent about everything. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you need to here is show how Danielson's roles are notable. Minor parts are pretty much considered to be any role that is not a main character and has not received coverage in reliable sources. For example, if someone played a character that was not in a large portion of the film and is not mentioned in reviews for the movie (other than a routine listing of cast) then that will not show notability. Be careful about using news sources that were fairly heavily based on press releases since those tend to be greatly depreciated at AfD. Primary sources (things released by Danielson, a crew member, or anyone affiliated with her or the films she was in) will not give notability either. (WP:PRIMARY) You need sources that discuss Danielson in depth and reviews that will mention her performance. If she was a minor character (like a character that dies 20 minutes into the film) but gets a mention in a review then that would still help show notability. However be careful- if a film is not notable on Wikipedia then these roles probably won't do anything at all even if she was a main character. Basically just being in a film is not enough to show notability- you have to show that these appearances are notable with coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What should be added here is this is just one of several articles I have discovered all related to Benetone Hillin Entertainment, all created by a small group of SPAs and the ones that fail the GNG all have similar things happening at AFD [27]. I think the this might be the tip of a much much larger iceberg. Ridernyc (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokogirl79, Thank you for your input on here, it's very much appreciated. I understand his concern, but I am not affiliated with anyone on here or the actress. I am not involved in some large conspiracy network like Rydernyc has suggested. Thanks again for improving the article. --Wetmnt1 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
may we ask what your inspiration to register and create this article was? Ridernyc (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. My media sweeps did not find much of what could be considered sources, although what I find interesting is the rather substantial pageviews counts (about a hundred a day), plus lots of image consistency (reasoning: when lots of images are of the same person, it is a sign that they're in the public eye) -- my unofficial tests of notability of course (which she passes), so I am somewhat on the fence. Wikipedia's tests of notability, well, I did not see much in terms of in-depth sources, independent, just mentions of her performances here and there. So the current article is mostly unsourced. So I am leaning to delete, could be persuaded if better sources are found.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 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) 00:40, 25 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - don't see much notability here. What am I missing? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Please see below. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 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, Monty845 17:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability or of significant roles, does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 19:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I still don't see any reason for notability, and no changes to the article since April 25th. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - YouTube videos and unreliable sources do not indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:20, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings[edit]

University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing without secondary sources; One or two are separately notable and have articles; a few should be and are included on the article for the campus, but such places as "Administration Drive Garage"do not belong even as content in any WP article. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Creator's response. This page supplements the University of Maryland, Baltimore County's main article with additional information about the campus. As a student at the university, I have taken up the opportunity to expand the university's wikipedia presence so that it follows the similar models of other local universities in the Baltimore and Washington, DC area.

    Please view similar models I used to create this article:

  • University of Maryland, College Park Campus Buildings
  • Towson University buildings and structures

    Seeing that these articles have remained uncriticized for potential deletion, I do not see the justification for deletion. Additionally, I would also like to state that this article is still under construction. I plan on expanding the sources for this page, as well as increasing the amount of information as it comes available. Scott218 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may be that those should also be deleted by the nominator's rationale, or it may be that those have different merit than this list. Either way, the nominator was not obligated to do anything about those articles in order to list this one for deletion.

      Can you locate any secondary sources that discuss these buildings, either individually or as a group? postdlf (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 26 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 03:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks, Scott218, for your work to build Wikipedia. The big problem with this at the moment, however, is that Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, reliable sources, and weighting aspects of a subject mean that Wikipedia only covers aspects of a subject according to the prominence given to those aspects in the body of secondary, independent sources about the subject. It's ok to link to school websites to verify things like addresses, construction dates, and other basic information but we need secondary sources to first establish that the buildings (or any subject) is the sort of content we want to include. It's a concept that can take some getting used to. If you'd like to talk more about this or ask questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - This is going to be a tough one to source effectively enough to justify a stand-alone article with the amount of content it has, I think. Considering the amount of work that went into this, maybe WP:USERFYing is a good way to go to preserve the work and give Scott218 or others longer than the duration of this AfD to work on it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a proper kind of list-article to have, a good investment to help to keep out unnecessary articles on each separate residence dormitory and each academic building. At AFD, we should try to avoid causing more AFDs, more often, by ourselves opening list-articles as substitutes. It is way better to nurture a list-article when some/many items are probably notable, some are marginal, some seem unworthy of separate articles. Avoid future fights about whether the campus center building is not notable, while the library is, etc. And why does Harvard University have its dormitories covered, but not my school, etc. Note here it is apparent that several of the buildings are individually notable, as evidenced by their having articles...their references should be considered to add to the one reference in this article already. Other single buildings may meet individual notability criteria, but can just be covered in this list-article, hopefully, with redirects to their entries.
I didn't check but I assume the creating editor is relatively new, as they didn't know how to "name" a reference and use it repeatedly, instead of duplicating. (I demonstrated how, just now, in the article.) The article should be developed to include some descriptions, so as to be able to substitute for separate articles. Start with adding brief descriptions/summaries for the buildings that have separate articles, and bringing in their references where appropriate. Assume good faith. I will watch and help some. This should NOT be userfied, as that is a dead waste which does not encourage other editors to develop. That would not allow readers to find their way to the article and stay to add material. Also calling for it to be userfied and developed is admitting already that the topic is acceptable. I think that wp:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is the relevant essay...a valid topic should not be deleted by AFD...tag the article for development, perhaps, but the article does not have to be developed during/before end of the AFD. So the article is okay as is; it is certainly a notable/acceptable as a topic for a list-article. See many more examples: List of Syracuse University buildings, List of Harvard College freshman dormitories, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories, many more, with many in Category:University and college dormitories in the United States or Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. Good start. Keep up the good work. Assume good faith. --doncram 18:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I tend to agree with DGG the nominating editor that "such places as 'Administration Drive Garage' do not belong", but that is a content comment that could be made at the Talk page of the article, is not reason for AFD. I see DGG often opening AFDs but not participating ever after that, which is a tad irksome...to the nom, it would be nice if you could please participate further and acknowledge some merit here or defend why the Keep arguments don't hold water in your view. --doncram!~
doncramI propose articles I think questionable for community discussion. I don't usually have a strong emotional or ideological commitment to removing them, and am quite content fort the community to decide. I think I have some skill at spotting those that may need discussion; I don't think I have any special insight into what should be kept or deleted. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Sometimes I deliberately nominate of the boundaries to try to get the community to think about the where the boundaries should be. Some people work differently--it is good to have multiple approaches. But if you ever think I've made enough of a misjudgment that I ought to withdraw than afd, ping me. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 25 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) 17:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list article should have been tagged for clean-up rather than nominated for deletion. This is an example of wasting time and effort in an AFD process, when the effort could have been spent on fixing the article. Gmcbjames (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables." I searched for sources about the subject here but did not find much about the topic. If sources can be found about "University of Maryland, Baltimore County, campus buildings", this should be kept as a stand-alone list. Otherwise, it probably should be merged to a parent article like University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Cunard (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (albeit selectively) to/with University of Maryland, Baltimore County as per @Cunard. Quis separabit? 12:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely on the basis I don't want to see this become a precedent for other self-sourced publicity about university campus real estate. This gives undue weight to the intricate detail of the university, which in any other situation would be removed. The key buildings can be (and generally are) described in the main article. Arguments such as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or "it's got a lot of content" don't cut the mustard for me. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All sourced to a primary source, and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. If you want to look at University buildings, there's an official website for that. Would support a very selective merge to- adding a couple of notable buildings to the main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 30 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) 07:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star Infranet[edit]

Star Infranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Τhe article fails WP:GNG in many ways: it has no significant coverage to be considered notable, references 3 & 4 are not reliable secondary sources as they are self-published material, reference 1 is obviously an advertisement (so collectively they are not independent of the subject) and source number 3 doesn't work. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 18:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the information in the article is correct - $100,000 in revenues and 50 employees - that would suggest very strongly a lack of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Multiple searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant and notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 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 soft delete. slakr\ talk / 02:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Baltimore Neighborhoods[edit]

South Baltimore Neighborhoods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains a list of "South Baltimore Neighborhoods" that are not located in Baltimore, stating that they are the "most suburban part of the Baltimore region". That statement is inaccurate and confusing, because the Southern District of Baltimore contains several high density urban neighborhoods. See South Baltimore, Baltimore and South Baltimore. Unless the article is significantly revised, and possibly renamed, it will not be verifiable. Folklore1 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty845 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whereas the material may merit its own article, this new article will be written from scratch anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 2 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 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a forgotten OR project. A tagged stub sitting around for eight years. Should have been tossed ages ago. Pax 06:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, probably to List of Baltimore neighborhoods#South, hopefully to be done by a Baltimore-knowledgeable editor after checking whether any material can be saved/merged. Offhand I don't know if those apartment complexes should be named...perhaps they should. If closer is not knowledgeable about the particulars, then copy/paste the content to a Talk-page section of the target article, instead, asking for a local to address it. --doncram 18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if Folklore1 (the nom)'s point is that the areas described may go outside of city of Baltimore into surrounding Baltimore County area (n.b. the county does not include the city, which is independent), then that issue should be put to the good people who have developed the List of Baltimore neighborhoods article. Maybe that list-article's scope should be expanded to clearly cover neighborhoods outside the city, or ones that overlap. --doncram 18:38, 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) 17:09, 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 Redirect to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30785 Greeley[edit]

30785 Greeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 30001–31000. Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 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) 17:04, 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 Redirect to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3541 Graham[edit]

3541 Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 3001–4000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 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) 17:03, 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|✉   21:07, 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: 23001–24000. Davewild (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

23776 Gosset[edit]

23776 Gosset (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 23001–24000. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 4 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) 17:03, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1562 Gondolatsch[edit]

1562 Gondolatsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 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) 17:03, 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|✉   21:35, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1823 Gliese[edit]

1823 Gliese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 4 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) 17:02, 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|✉   21:49, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1891 Gondola[edit]

1891 Gondola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 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) 17:02, 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) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   21:55, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1599 Giomus[edit]

1599 Giomus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 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) 17:01, 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|✉   21:39, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1756 Giacobini[edit]

1756 Giacobini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 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) 16:59, 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|✉   21:45, 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) 17:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bold[edit]

Adam Bold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO, WP:RESUME: Article reads like a resume, and the articles about two enterprises he's supposedly well known for are well on their way for deletion have been deleted. Sufficient independent, reliable coverage of the individual does not exist to sustain this Wikipedia article. Brianhe (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a free resume hosting service. Not finding anything particularly notable about this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject who wants to be promoted. No reliable references to establish this subject as notable. Reads like resume. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this resume. Most of the sources, i.e. MutualFundShow.com, are not third-party, in my opinion. — Wyliepedia 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too heavily sourced to websites that he is extremely linked to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:18, 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 Speedy Delete under G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Woolright[edit]

Shelton Woolright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page fails to meet the general notability for biographies of living persons. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OddballPetz[edit]

OddballPetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable video game mod. TKK! bark with me! 16:25, 15 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) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but there aren't enough sources to justify even that. – czar 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Software article of unclear notability. I'm not sure if this is a fan-made expansion/mod or a hoax, but if it were an official product, there would at least be some incidental mention on the web connecting it to PF Magic.Dialectric (talk) 17:04, 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1358 Gaika[edit]

1358 Gaika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 4 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) 16:20, 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) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉   22:03, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Davewild (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2968 Iliya[edit]

2968 Iliya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 2001–3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Apparently one of the preliminary flight plans for NEAR Shoemaker involved a fly-by of this one, and there's a fair amount of pre-flight media mentioning this, but instead it actually flew by 253 Mathilde. So it could have been notable but I don't think it actually is. Nothing else of interest found. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 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) 16:20, 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|✉   21:03, 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 Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badri Sanjeevi[edit]

Badri Sanjeevi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

bio that appears as both a coi and a resume. Wgolf (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Obvious promotion, resume-style article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional as written, no clear indication of notability. However, it may well be that this person is notable, if the current article is accurate. A person at that level often has sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to pass WP:BIO. But if notability is established, a massive rewrite would be needed. DES (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Tammel[edit]

Anne Tammel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. non notable author whose only contributors have been doing this article alone and nothing else with a major COI Wgolf (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:AUTHOR. Blatantly promotional tone. Per my PROD, the "references" provided include Amazon book listings, links to other Wikipedia articles, press releases from the publisher, interviews/profiles in non-WP:RS blogs, listings on directory-style websites, and what looks like an utterly irrelevant passing mention in an article about MBA programs that isn't even alluded to in the text of the article. The total is nowhere close to being enough content to support or justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:17, 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) 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Men's Division I Elite Eight appearances by coach[edit]

List of NCAA Men's Division I Elite Eight appearances by coach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is likely not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. In the latest NCAA record book, no such list exists. In fact, in the entire 279 page book, there are only 8 references to the Elite 8, as opposed to nearly 500 references to the Final Four. The only Elite 8 records that exist are most appearances by school, consecutive appearances by school, and a comprehensive listing of the seeds to make the Elite 8. The records also date to 1951, when the tournament expanded to 16 teams, not 1985. The article in it's present state has no sources, and is mostly made up of the same people as the Final Four list. Such a list could not be found on the first few pages of a Google search, either. A pre-discussion has occurred on the Wikiproject College Basketball talk page SCMatt33 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SCMatt33 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is fancruft and a non-notable characteristic of a college basketball head coach. The head coaches are historically judged by Final Four appearances, not Elite Eight. There aren't sources to satisfy this list per GNG either. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced Listcruft. Fails GNG as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. I've done some editing to it recently because it exists and had a lot of inaccuracies or incomplete information that needed fixing. Ncjon (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reliable sources speak in terms of championships or Final Fours, not Elite Eights. Rikster2 (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTN. Non-notable. Maduwanwela (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. SCMatt provides a nice summary above, and his rationale reflects the majority thinking of WikiProject College Basketball, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTR Light Rail Route 705/706[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MTR Light Rail Route 705/706 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could easily be summarised in one or two paragraphs in Light Rail (Hong Kong) § Stops and routes. Article has been unsourced since its creation; I could not find any reliable sources on either Google or DuckDuckGo except for short news briefs on minor traffic accidents. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. The article was nominated for deletion just over 60 days ago by the same editor (with the result “keep”) and nothing has changed since, so I don't see what the point of this new deletion request is. Useddenim (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Useddenim: The only comment or vote related to the two route articles was yours (where you voted to merge this article into Light Rail (Hong Kong)#Stops and routes). The others did not mention them, and only mentioned the stop articles. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That merge suggestion was in the context of your desire for a mass deletion of all of the Hong Kong Light Rail stop articles. Besides, it would be pointless to have kept all of those, and now delete the article for the route(s) that link them all together. As Oakshade says at WP:Articles for deletion/MTR Light Rail Route 505, it’s time to move on. Useddenim (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Besides being an entire rail route, this was AfD closed as "keep" less than 60 days ago. Just because most didn't "mention" this article only confirms that in the entire discussion there was no consensus to delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 06:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MTR Light Rail Route 505[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MTR Light Rail Route 505 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could easily be summarised in one or two paragraphs in Light Rail (Hong Kong) § Stops and routes. Article has been unsourced since its creation; I could not find any reliable sources on either Google or DuckDuckGo except for short news briefs on minor traffic accidents. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - An entire rail route. It's impossible for such a project to be completed without a great amount of government environmental, budgetary and planning reports. Far too much topic-specific content along with all the other routes to be summarized in the general MTR routes and stops article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Changed to Speedy as I just noticed this was just nominated for AfD by the same nom and closed as "Keep" less than two months ago. The nom needs to move on. --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Oakshade: The construction information is in the Light Rail (Hong Kong) article – this is not an entire rail line, but a light rail service. Only five stops on the network (out of 68) are serviced by only one route. In the last nomination, only one comment (by Useddenim, merge into main article) mentioned the route articles; the rest focused only on the stop articles. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • That most AfD participants didn't even bother mentioning the route articles just confirms there was no consensus to delete them when proposed for deletion.--Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 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 speedy deleted by Sergecross73 ... discospinster talk 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha Rose[edit]

Kesha Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any references verifying this album. Proposed deletion tag removed. ... discospinster talk 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't immediately verify after glancing. Which seems odd as Ke$ha is a pretty notable artist. NickCT (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a speculative third album said to be released in July 2015 so I can see why sources are hard to find. The image is from a dead facebook page so hard to tell if it's fanmade. The first single for this album "Lover" was not officially released in 2014, and Hallucination was also leaked so to my knowledge no new material for the "third album" has been officially released. I suspect this is fan made speculation. Cowlibob (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this just an all-out hoax then? If so, I'll just speedy it...Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 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 redirect to Craig Gower. If anyone wants to Merge I have no objections. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Flynn[edit]

Amanda Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTINHERITED, the limited media coverage she gets is because she's married to the famous Craig Gower. LibStar (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or redirect to Craig Gower then. No sense losing the information that someone went to the work to create. A redirect will also avoid the problem of the article being recreated. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Culture Records[edit]

Our Culture Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label, no notable artists, absolutely no obvious coverage in reliable sources anywhere. Couldn't find a thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom, I could find no reliable references. No notable artists signed. No length of operation. No indication the label has any influence on musical landscape. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, and could not be considered "one of the more important indie labels" according to WP:NMUSIC. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to be pretty lenient on record-label articles, but this one pretty clearly has no notable artists or releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the reason for deleting a record label. The article has been on wikipedia for quite a while. Surely it's notability is enough to be on Wikipedia. It's been seen by many admins before and never flagged up. I just think it's non-sense to delete it now. The label is also active in the worldwide electronic music scene promoting and releasing music. User:Vanmodhe 10:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a newly created label and as it is record labels almost never get significant and notable coverage and that seems to be the case here. Multiple searches at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 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 Delete. The consensus (ignoring the socks) appears to be that this subject does not meet notability guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Lynch (comics)[edit]

Bob Lynch (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason BenCaesar (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by Bob Lynch, the subject of article, himself. That goes against wikipedia policies. Bob Lynch is not an important person either.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note BenCaesar is a WP:Single-purpose account editor who appears to have registered to attempt to have this article deleted. A brief search on Google shows that Lynch is indeed a comic book author who had a following in the 1980s/90s. It would be inconceivable that there would not be references that would satisfy WP:GNG. However, given the time at which he was publishing, sources will inevitably be pre-internet. WP:AB is a guidline rather than policy. I suggest this article is Kept and improved on. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catfish -- I do agree that the nom is an SPA. It also has the earmarks of a seasoned editor. If someone wanted to conduct a SPI, I would support that. Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While looking through the old diffs for material needing revision deletion, I found this potential source. Some of his material was self-published. I am not sure we will be able to find enough source material to establish notability. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPediaMediaEdits (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • This acct has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • This acct has been indef blocked for block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • This acct has been indef blocked for block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 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) 17:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Poetry Trilogy[edit]

The Poetry Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published collection of poetry. The only references are the amazon pages for the books themselves and I could not find any third-party coverage. --Non-Dropframe talk 09:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Smacks of self-promotion, no evidence of notability. Yunshui 雲水 10:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon, fails WP:GNG with no reliable third party references available. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Everything in the article in question is true. This is a TRUE article. why does it matter who wrote it or how it's verified? Honestly. Someone has to be the first person to write any truth before it's known to the world. Please look for any FALSE information in this article before it is considered for deletion. Honestly. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronLA2012 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AaronLA2012: How can the statement "Not much is known about the author him/herself, his/her age, race, nationality and religious background is still a mystery, but what is known is that the author's claim of having written the largest collection of poetry ever published is thus far undisputed." be true when you claim in this Teahouse question that you are the author of the The Poetry Trilogy? You created this Wikipedia article about a collection of poetry that you claim to have written and yet the article claims that not much is known about the author? I apologize if I am missing something here, but I just don't understand how that can be. What you need to do is show that the article satisfies at least one of Wikipedia's notability criteria for books and is not simply for reasons of self promotion and publicity. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is about a non-notable self-published trilogy and is written by the poet, who did not understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of books which have not been widely reviewed by reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 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. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cold-weather biking[edit]

Cold-weather biking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

  • It's been lacking additional citations/references since 2007.
  • Most of the page is unreferenced and therefore appear to be Original Research and appears to be the original thought/opinion of the author.
  • It's not quite written in a How-To/Advice style it appears very close.
  • It doesn't cover any specific variation, type or facet of the cycling, it could be generally summed up as Cyclists may ride in the cold, they may put on extra layers, because it's cold, they may use wider-tyres because it's cold.

In General I don't feel it adds anything to Wikipedia as an article. Rehnn83 Talk 09:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 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 keep. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Warn[edit]

Jesse Warn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references provided do not establish this subject as notable. Most of the references are references to social media post, which generally are not reliable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Jesse Warn is an award winning director and cinematographer and more than deserves an article on Wikipedia. LLArrow (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LLArrow, than please establish him as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know not, to which you speak. Firstly, Jesse Warn is of the male persuasion. Secondly, I just established him as notable in my previous response. The article itself is a meta establishment of notability. LLArrow (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter and Instagram is most always not a reliable source. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the source is a verified account, it is perfectly acceptable. LLArrow (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken, LLArrow, social media are not sources to establish notability. They may be used, rarely, to establish facts, only. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not claiming that the sources given establish notability, I'm claiming that that they are reliable and verifiable. I'm done debating this idiotic attempt of deletion. I have seen numerous other articles on Wikipedia that are far less notable than Jesse Warn. Good day, LLArrow (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use the OTHER CRAP EXIST OTHER STUFF EXIST argument. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop this vendetta you have against this director, and start pursuing something worthwhile. LLArrow (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the use of "crap" seems to be somewhat harsh for an award-winning artist(usually this guideline is refered to as WP:OTHERSTUFF (there's also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), there's no vendetta going on here. To question the notability of anybody is run-of-the-mill routine procedure at AfD. Instead of insisting that Warn is notable because you know it, you should follow our guidelines and show that he is notable. See WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG and argue, please. Kraxler (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will not devote one more second of my life to this frivolous debate. Good day. LLArrow (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is the main means of deciding how to proceed here at Wikipedia. To refuse to take part in discussions, especially because you know that you're right but it is beneath your dignity to tell us why, is an unhelpful and counterproductive attitude. You're not required to discuss further, but the closer of this debate isn't required to close it as "keep" either. Kraxler (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy a nice pile of passive aggressiveness, so I thank you for that. However I have a life that Wikipedia factors into in the most minimalistic of ways, which doesn't lend well to leading noble charges for every Tom, Dick and Harry that I happen to have ample respect and admiration for. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He won at the 2000 Nokia New Zealand Film Awards the award for Best Script, Short Film; and apparently another award in the short film categories in 1999. Was nominated twice, but did not win, at the 2003 New Zealand Film Awards for Best Direstor and Best Screenplay of Nemesis Game. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 12 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppersexpress[edit]

Shoppersexpress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No proper sources. All of them either fail WP:CORPDEPTH, or purely prove it exists. Seems like its a non-notable company with a comical name. Jcmcc (Talk) 06:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It exists, but that's about all the sources say, I agree they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. As such, it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Also, I've done some minor fixes, put it still reads like an advert. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are proper sources like it has been two times in The Hindu newspaper - a newspaper worldwide well know !. Rohitsakala (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete blatant advert, worked on mainly by a single purpose editor which indicates a possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there is not much significant coverage despite searches (News, Books, highbeam, thefreelibrary, of Times of India, Indian Express and Daily News and Analysis). SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America1000 11:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House Training[edit]

House Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This wasn't a bad episode, but it is not individually notable. It does not pass the GNG, and all that the internet appears to offer is plot. One finds an occasional brief discussion such as this one, from a press that doesn't inspire much confidence even if it's owned by Penguin. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 8 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) 03:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - House is certainly notable, and that this was one of the episodes submitted for Emmy consideration has notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:47, 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 no consensus. North America1000 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Value (Twelve Gauge Valentine album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shock Value (Twelve Gauge Valentine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable album by a non-notable band. Two short staff reviews in two RSes. The others, not so much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band should be notable, because it was the starting band for Jake Campbell, before he joined Alesana. This album was the only release (besides Exclaimationare), but the band said they reformed under a new name. I just can't find any info on them. Metalworker14 (Yo) 8:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment If it meets WP:GNG, then it can stand. If it doesn't, it can't. Its membership, if they are individually notable, is a sign that it may meet GNG, but not a guarantee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's two reviews from reliable sources already cited in the article (AbsolutePunk and Jesus Freak Hideout). Both reviews consist of four paragraphs, which is not what I would exactly call short, and should be good to establish notability for the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:00, 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) 00:52, 8 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) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NALBUMS. I don't think the reviews count as significant coverage as required. I find it strange that there is an article on the album but not on the band - it appears the band article was deleted. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – passes WP:NALBUMS. It has received significant coverage from reliable sources, albeit in Christian music publications, so it should be kept. Every article does not have to achieve massive coverage in order for it to achieve notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I guess the publications AbsolutePunk, Jesus Freak Hideout, Cross Rhythms, and Indie Vision Music, by having articles on Wikipedia, lends no credence that this album and band have achieved coverage. "Significant coverage" is in the eye of the beholder.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have four sources. Fifteen paragraphs in all (and that includes some brief sentences) for a total of 1,655 words. I would call that not meeting significant coverage in multiple sources, although they are RSes. While it is now up to four sources from the two when nominated, it still fails. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do they not? It's not like the reviews consist of only a few sentences. Three of those reviews consist of at least four paragraphs, which sounds like significant coverage to me. In this case, keeping it rather deleting it seems to be the most logical choice. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do they? We're expecting material that goes onto pages. Reviews are the worst because they're intended to be brief. I have read books that analyze collections of works by some artists with chapters devoted to individual albums. I have seen scholarly papers written on songs or larger compositions. Only four fringe publications offering so few words is laughable. The four-minute song and five-minute read has rotted your brain for what a significant source is.
URL Words Sentences Paragraphs
http://www.indievisionmusic.com/2006/11/29/twelve-gauge-valentine-shock-value/ 480 28 6
http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/ShockValue.asp 566 28 4
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=946712 466 19 4
http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Twelve_Gauge_Valentine/Shock_Value/19766/ 142 8 1
total 1654 83 15
mean 414 21 4
Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're setting standards way too high here. Most albums don't even get whole chapters in books written about them. For this reason, album reviews are often seen as the best way to establish notability for an album. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • If this were a person, we would say that significant coverage has not been met. Four articles that only encompass 15 paragraphs and 83 "sentences". It would not pass. The same should apply to albums. Look at other albums that are nominated. Are four reviews enough for them? I am reflecting the project's expectations. The fact is, if this article stands, then a band article can be claimed to be required as well and there clearly isn't enough content for a band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't know about that. I've seen many albums survive AFD with just two or three reviews. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an album with three or more reviews (at least ones that was pointed by someone in an AFD) not get kept at one. Also, WP:NALBUMS clearly points out that a band being notable is not required for one of their albums to be notable. Kokoro20 (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can't speak to the ones you've seen Kokoro20, but I think it depends on the sources of the reviews. I don't see Indie Vision Music, the one with the longest review, as a reliable source. It's page has been tagged for notability for two years. I just proposed AfD for that on virtue of the only article I found about it was one saying the site needed donations to stay open. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeyra[edit]

Homeyra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no single reference, and there haven't been references on this BLP for years. I strongly question notability and hence suggest to delete. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I'm not really qualified to comment on sources in Persian, but there are a ton of images of her on Google image search, and 600K hits on her name in Persian. Her songs are on streaming music services... At the very least, it seems enough to say that she's a notable singer. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Margin1522: - I thought that as well, but I do not see much obvious in English coming out. One could ask the question: is this person internationally / English notable, or is this person only Iran notable? Is she significantly known outside of Iran? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beetstra: That's a good question. Hopefully someone who knows Persian can help us out here. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:32, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 8 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) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - also having trouble finding news articles, but the Farsi article on her is extensive and detailed. Being "Iran notable" is sufficient. There's also stubs on her in several languages. I would contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:27, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. Of note is that the keep !vote does not present a valid rationale for article retention per se, as no sources were provided. North America1000 10:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tren-D[edit]

Tren-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This band does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG, WP:BAND). I don't think any of their singles have charted on Gaon Chart, and I couldn't find any reliable English-language sources. The article currently has no references. Korean sources most likely exist, but something beyond press releases or the typical announcement articles is necessary to show notability. Random86 (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If "Korean sources most likely exist" let's see some so we can assess notability In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said Korean sources likely exist, I was referring to the typical press release style articles that are always released by the Korean media. Significant coverage is required to show notability. Random86 (talk) 07:48, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 8 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) 03:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely no coverage (even from third party sites like Allkpop/Koreaboo), no significant mentions about them appearing in music shows, nada. Maybe if they promote more and are more well known, then I'll reconsider. Tibbydibby (talk) 20:33, 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. Soft Delete Davewild (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flashe[edit]

Flashe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like Tren-D, this band does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG, WP:BAND). I don't think any of their singles have charted on Gaon Chart, and the only reliable English-language source I found just mentions they performed at a festival: [32]. The article currently has no references. Korean sources most likely exist, but something beyond press releases or the typical announcement articles is necessary to show notability. Random86 (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:50, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 8 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) 03:30, 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 no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure). Esquivalience t 00:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Network Operators Group[edit]

Swiss Network Operators Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, though there are numerous passing mentions of the group. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This non-profit group is just for Switzerland and the real value is in it's mailinglist: see the archives: http://lists.swinog.ch/public/swinog/ so for the people within switzerland within the ISP industry the value of this group is very high. But on the other hand, I had a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Internet_Network_Operators%27_Groups and there are only a few other groups which have their own article:

They all don't have that much visibility in the public but are key for the people who operate in this field. But at the end of the day you might be right about your argument that there is no indication of notability. If you still think to go for the AfD, please go ahead and please don't forget to nominate also the other article which are there. Thanks! --Never stop exploring (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 8 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) 03:29, 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) 07:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roosh Williams[edit]

Roosh Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently does not meet WP:ARTIST. At the very least, it is WP:TOOSOON – one of the sources specifically describes him as "little known". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Per nom. Though that name Roosh! That's the most interesting and amusing part! Wgolf (talk) 19:44, 8 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) 03:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - I'm not a fan of rap so that's why I waited until commenting but a News search here was the only thing that gave me results (Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary all had nothing). This article has references and from well known websites but I'm not sure if he's notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Bud Kindergarten[edit]

Rose Bud Kindergarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School with basically no notability to be found at all (not sure how schools like this are handled) Wgolf (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools must meet the WP:ORG guideline, GNG, or both. This article neither asserts notability nor could I find any (much less "significant") coverage from secondary sources. --Non-Dropframe talk 05:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - A7. (Kindergartens do not qualify as inherently notable along per other educational institutions). —МандичкаYO 😜 09:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:35, 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) 07:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Oak, Monmouth[edit]

The Royal Oak, Monmouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be an unremarkable pub and this article is more or less an advert for it. After removing a substantial amount of WP:OR from national census returns, and general info about pubs/oaks, the remainder has little evidence of reliable, independent published sources (we have one entry in a book about pubs in the area, and a number of historical directory listings of owners/occupiers). The building itself is not listed, therefore unremarkable too. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it were listed, even only at grade II, I would have some sympathy, but without architectural merit you don't have a reason for keeping it. Le petit fromage (talk) 07:27, 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, North America1000 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without wider significance outside the local area, and it's not a Listed building. Its claim "[second to] last pub in Wales" apparently means one of the last pubs you'd see leaving Wales due to its proximity to the English border, but that doesn't give it real significance and is pretty incidental. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked around and there really is nothing notable about this pub. As said above, something like listed building status would guarantee a keep but it doesn't even have that. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 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) 07:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The College Dropouts[edit]

The College Dropouts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested without edit summary so I'll say what User:Everymorning said: Non-notable magazine with insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG Pishcal — ♣ 19:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. All refs in the article are to the website itself. Admittedly, name makes searches difficult, but no substantial RS coverage seen. Alexa ranking of >5mm and plummeting does not suggest we are missing something. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:19, 12 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 01:45, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shashi Kant Singh Mahavidyalaya, Chiraigaon Block, Bariyasanpur, Varanasi[edit]

Dr. Shashi Kant Singh Mahavidyalaya, Chiraigaon Block, Bariyasanpur, Varanasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any secondary sources that mention this school. The only mention when I search Google is the school's own website. Agtx (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 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, North America1000 01:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as above. Even the pictures on the college website are not real and the page looks purely promotional in nature. I have moved the page to another name as the earlier name had the address in it. For now, we can delete it and in future, when the college starts, a page can be created by the author. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:41, 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. Article is piss poor but notability is there. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ranee Campen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ranee Campen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article fails WP:NACTOR. She had not played any lead role in a notable film perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Kom Chad Luek award is not a notable award. Kom Chad Luek itself is a Newspaper and not an award. In addition, I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per offline coverage demonstrated in previous AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you that the previous AfD was close as "no consensus" and the outcome of a debate that was closed as no consensus has little or no effect on this debate. All that is important is to validate the notability of the subject with multiple independent reliable sources. However, Can you provide a scan or an excerpt from that of those offline sources? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had provided links to those scans in the previous AfD—that was what I was referring to, not the outcome. Quoting for convenience: "Subject is notable according to the WP:GNG. In-depth interviews have featured in Lisa Weekly[33] and GM[34], both Thai print magazines, as well as Post Today[35], a daily newspaper. Not to mention tons of coverage in celebrity gossip columns in both print and online news publications.[36] --Paul_012 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)" --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with thai language. Source 1 was written in thai language, source 2 was written in the same language but I saw something like "rising star" perhaps describing her as a rising star (meaning not yet a star), source 4 is the same language. However, I don't understand the content of the sources. I'm not really sure of the reliability of the sources since am not familiar with the language, perhaps an input from thai-speaking editor may be needed.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has not played in a notable film is because she stars in TV series. And those series themselves are notable. We just don't have articles on it here (but in Thai wiki). Also Kom Chad Luek Award is the award held yearly by the Kom Chad Luek newspaper, similar to MTV handling out yearly entertainment awards. (The award is notable. Here are some news coverage of the awards: The Nation [37], Matichon [38], Manager [39], Bangkok Biz News [40].) Here is Thai Rath's news coverage of her [41]: 1 news so far in May 2015, 5 news in April, 1 news in March, 3 news in February and 5 news in January this year alone. Also Disney Thailand chose her to dress as Cinderella in the movie opening premiere of Cinderella_(2015_film) in Thailand [42]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, she has not played a lead role in a notable film. having stars in a notable film itself does not confer notability, she has to play a lead role in a notable film. Secondly, How on earth will MTV Movie Awards synonymous to Kom Chad Luek award ? MTV movie award is a Movie Awards while Kom Chad Luek is not a movie award but a common and non-notable award organize by a newspaper which undermine the award. The award is a minor award and doesn't count as a notable award. Notable awards that may count includes the Academy Awards, Golden Horse Film Festival and Awards, Hong Kong Film Award, Africa Movie Academy Awards to mention few. Has she won the Golden Horse Film Festival and Awards, Taiwan's equivalent to the Academy Awards? She hasn't. Lastly, having been choosing to dress as Cinderella in the movie opening premiere of Cinderella_(2015_film) in Thailand does not make her notable as notability is not inherited. She has to play a lead role in Cinderella_(2015_film) itself as an actor. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable award in entertainment in Thailand. And her drama is part of Suparbburut Chutathep drama series which was 2013 Thailand biggest hits according to this news piece [43]. As far as I know, the content of this wiki does not have to be known to every country in the whole world. Sufficient level of notable is enough. National-level has been sufficient so far in Thai-related articles. And this article wasn't even started by a Thai. A Chinese started it. Many Thai TV series are broadcast in several Asian countries. Taiwan edition of Yahoo ran an article of her. [44] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:51, 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, North America1000 01:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the significant coverage identified above (in Thai) establishing that the article meets the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 07:08, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Gordon IV[edit]

Robert L. Gordon IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination. Questions have been raised as to this individual's notability. The page was recently redirected to America's Promise, and subsequent discussion at RfD resulted in consensus to restore the article and bring it here. I will not be watching this page, so please ping me if you require me. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what makes this "procedural" but I do not find any sources about this person other than the announcement of his position as Chief Digital Officer, America's Promise Alliance. There is one HuffPost article by him, and various directories. Nothing here would normally add up to notability. Is there something I am missing? LaMona (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's procedural because, when the page was a redirect, there was consensus at RfD to restore it as an article and discuss its notability here. I'm not advocating for or against deletion, at least at this point, so it's a procedural (i.e., neutral) nomination. --BDD (talk) 12:55, 15 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 00:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All I find are routine listings [[45]], which business executives do receive. No coverage in the press. There is a Q&A in what appears to be a small trade publication for chief digital officers [46] maybe WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No useable sources o the page except, perhaps, one small award. Sourced to press releases from the organization he works for, and a business directory listing. Really, there is nothing here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:28, 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) 06:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleBot[edit]

ArticleBot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable software, with defunct website, supported only by two links to unreliable blogs. No WP:RS, no independent coverage, no evidence of notability or even that the software actually exists. Article author says software is "referenced multiple times in Google Books" but hasn't provided any reliable sources to that effect. Article has been without a reliable source for six years. Note that a search finds disparate things called "article bot", "articleBot", etc., but no indication that any of them is notable. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 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, North America1000 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any WP:RS. Surprised it lasted this long. In a google search, most of what I see are forum/answer website posts asking "is it legit", "does it work", which tells me that (in the oddly optimistic view that people on the internet actually look for answers before asking others) they couldn't find reliable sources either. ― Padenton|✉   05:29, 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. Davewild (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civic chandran v ammini amma[edit]

Civic chandran v ammini amma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopaedic and unreferenced. Not sure if it meets notability guidelines either. Adam9007 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. No valid rationale for deletion. Notability is determined by the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. "Unencyclopedic" is a non-argument. It is so vague as to be meaningless and is one of the arguments to avoid (WP:ATA). "I'm not sure if its notable" necessarily amounts to a failure to comply with BEFORE, as you are not supposed to nominate unless you are sure that it is not. The case is notable under GNG and under criteria 2 of WP:CASES, as decisions of the Kerala High Court are binding: [47]. James500 (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This reads like a law-school essay (and probably was one), and needs to be reworked to comply with wikipedia's formatting, tone, and sourcing requirements. But the article's subject is notable given that the court ruling is oft cited in context of Indian copyright law and its interpretation of fair dealing. The only reason to delete the current version would be if it is found to be a copyvio, and on a searcch it doesn't appear to be one (at least of sources accessible online). Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have moved the page to Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma; broken the article up into sections; added a lede and a few sources. The rest of the article still needs work (which I am hoping the article creator User:SeverusSnape07 can help with), but as I said above notability is not in doubt. Abecedare (talk) 18:26, 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash! (Y) 00:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hate Story 3[edit]

Hate Story 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF but principal photography to commence soon Sammanhumagain (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Agree with NFF but I believe the production is about to start looking at the release date here. Mr RD 10:51, 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, North America1000 00:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Vishal Pandya Hate Story 3
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and the obvious fact that this is basically a trolling meme. For those same reasons I have WP:SALTed the title. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Ward[edit]

Azeem Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Seems like a clear cut case of WP:1E. The person is only notable for a minor viral phenomenon and lacks any significant coverage outside of that event. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Nominators note: I meant to mention WP:BLP1E as part of my deletion rational because it very much applies here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this could get even bigger and not having an entry for him could prove to be a mistake.
  • Delete it. This is not a notable matter according to Wikipedia guidelines - Harpsichord246 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The recital is yet to be performed, we must at least wait and see what becomes of it after that. He may choose to accept the offer to play in Bristol. Could suddenly get a lot bigger. We all know the internet these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.44 (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at Wikipedia's guidelines it is clear the page should be changed into an article about the event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.215.98 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm far from an expert on the notability guidelines, but seeing as articles are starting to appear (like here for instance) it seems to be worthy of at least a stub. As per the 1E guideline, it does seem like it should be about the event rather than Azeem himself, though. NikNaks talk - gallery 12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpeedyStrong delete - Clear WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that this qualifies for A7, on the grounds that being a "viral phenomenon" can be considered an assertion of notability. I tend to favor a strict interpretation of A7, so I'll wait for someone else sort it out. Of course this should end up being deleted as not notable though. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would think that WP:BLP1E applies. Apart from that, it looks like a 'silly season' stunt by someone or other - probably not by the subject (who certainly hasn't done anything of note yet himself, so it would seem) so A7 could apply as it is an organised event. Peridon (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:15MOF. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new one on me, but I like it. ;-) Peridon (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Haha, there are currently nine 12 18 contested deletion rationales on the talk page of the article. (None are valid of course) but that has to be a new record or something. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete' or Redirect to the event if the event becomes notable. No notability at this time for musician or event. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:15MOF, to wit, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (emphasis mine). There is no indication that this flash-in-the-pan event is likely to generate any "profile raising" for the person involved, so delete it. When, in 5 years, he's a world-renowned flute player, we can revisit the issue. But today? No. --Jayron32 19:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - What are the criteria for a Meme to become notable? If it is notable it could be merged to List of Internet phenomena. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:15MOF. We can recreate if or when the subject becomes more notable. Sidenote: As seen on the talk page, the 30 non editors using the link to contest the speedy deletion is one of the reasons I'm terrified of the idea of the WMF replacing our talk pages with WP:Flow chatboards. Any RFC or discussion anywhere will get trashed by one incoming link. Alsee (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - person is decidedly non-notable per BLP1E, and we should not try to track everything that "goes viral", we'll be chasing our tails for decades. BMK (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough sourcing to meet WP:ANYBIO or to justify the existence of a WP:BLP. As stated by multiple commenters above, WP:15MOF and WP:BLP1E are appropriate essays here. WP:NOTNEWS also applies as well; notability is not temporary, and there is no evidence that this is anything but random news. --Kinu t/c 20:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Non encyclopaedic. Will be forgotten in a few weeks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is an orphan. You would only find it if you were already searching for Azeem Ward, and you would only be searching for him if you had already heard about him. If you had already heard about him, then you already know everything that's in the stub. Very clear per WP:BLP1E. Greedo8 20:44, 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 per WP:BASE/N and the addition of sources to the article.(non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Cota[edit]

Jesús Cota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league player, no sources that would pass GNG. A long Mexican League career doesn't automatically make you notable. Wizardman 14:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC) t[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Fails GNG. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the article history, I can tell you that I created this page over three years ago. I cannot tell you why I did that, however. I can't remember for the life of me. Was it because the Mexican League counted in BASE/N at this point? And if that's the only reason, why did I create him specifically? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played in the 2009 Baseball World Cup for Mexico.[48][49] That's a significant international tournament so he therefore passes WP:BASE/N. It's a shame no one actually researches these guys before casting their 'votes'. Alex (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does he pass GNG? That's all that matters. BASE/N does not trump GNG. It's a shame no one actually reads the rules before casting their 'votes'. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He has significant coverage on Spanish-language sites. Checking for sources, which I'm pretty sure isn't even done in the first place, is more than looking at the first page of Google returns. Alex (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's this great technological development known as a 'link'. It enables one to point others to information found elsewhere on the web. This, of course, is a whole lot more helpful than saying 'he has significant coverage' (or, 'world-renowned baseball superstar'). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And there are also these things developed through evolution called fingers, which can type on keyboards, which can be used to go to any website one can imagine, including the esoteric search engine no one has ever heard of called Google, which should have been gone to in the first place before this AfD was even created, though apparently it was not.
But in all seriousness, the Mexican League is Mexico's major league, so guys with significant careers like Cota tend to get significant coverage. Alex (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any significant coverage for him? Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on his playing in the Baseball World Cup, which has previously been considered sufficient for notability. Spanneraol (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 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, Go Phightins! 00:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I quote from WP:BASE/N: "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they [... 2.] have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." Jesus Cota has played for Mexico in the 2009 Baseball World Cup. That's a fact, and our guidelines should serve to avoid unneccessary time-sinks. There is also enough media coverage in the article to support notability in addition to his national team appearances. I added five refs, 3 with a photo of him. There are many more. Kraxler (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:BASE/N - plus, nice added refs and article improvement from Kraxler. This should never have been nominated for AfD. Scr★pIronIV 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Player has played in the Baseball World Cup, and so passes WP:BASE/N. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:39, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_15&oldid=1142625019"