Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 May	18 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monetate[edit]

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

non notable company. article by paid editor. The award is local one only, not a national one. The NYTimes articles is about more general matters, not substantially about this particular company. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The industry this company is in, it's not surprising there isn't significant and notable coverage as shown with my first News search (first five pages or so and goes as far as January 2013) but there's nothing significant and a a little under half is press releases. Books found some results as well as thefreelibrary and highbeam but I would say let's see if this is notable later. SwisterTwister talk 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG except press releases and general articles there is nothing specific about this particular company.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Rajagopalan[edit]

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

Completely fails to meet WP:BIO as there is zero substantial coverage in RS. The claimed LAT article is in fact an advertorial in Beverly Hills Times Magazine. Other coverage is just brief mentions. SmartSE (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This article was additionally paid for by the subject of the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has mentions here and there, but not enough focused coverage on him. Fails WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - US News and WebMD cites are typical of the sources -- a directory and a chat account. Not used in the article (yet) is The National Enquirer. — Brianhe (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage only brief mentions in articles .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Further searches failed to provide me with any convincing evidence of passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:10, 24 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 snow close/speedy delete as WP:G11 (promotion) and as WP:G12 since it's a copyvio from the Amazon entry and this press release. This page is promotional enough to be speedied but even without that, I can't see where this AfD would close as anything other than delete so it's also a snow close. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca the werewolf daughter[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published book, fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 21:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, WP:G11, advertisement —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheeky Nandos[edit]

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

Flash-in-the-pan meme with zero deep third-party coverage; belongs in Urban Dictionary, not in Wikipedia. <b2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom - there's coverage but not particularly notable, we'll see if anyone remembers this next week —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lightweight coverage on a slow news day or two; doesn't alter the fact Wikipedia's not a slang dictionary—WP:WORDISSUBJECT. –146.199.151.33 (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)>OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 17 May[reply]
Comment: I'm not seeing a huge amount of coverage but I think that this might merit a very brief 1-2 line sentence in the main article for Nando's, perhaps in an "in the media" section. I would imagine that the chain has probably been featured in films or TV shows, so it might merit a media section overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't object to that, Tokyogirl, as Nando's is aware of the meme and has commented on it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is brief and not informative, the concept is not notable: a few very brief news reports with nothing substantial to say. Apart from this meme, there has been quite a bit of British media coverage of Nando's wider cultural significance (which apparently it does have), so this might merit a mention under Nando's but certainly no more. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few lines into Nandos, Delete the rest. –Davey2010^Talk 21:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheeky nandos" anagrams into "hackneyed, son", which at this point in the life of the meme seems quite apt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rosswood[edit]

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

There are concerns this article does not meet WP:GNG, and it was previously redirect per these concerns. Given the substantial article with some demonstrated notability, I considered it better to nominate it for AfD to gain a sure consensus. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting GNG; individual is known for WP:1E, everything else in the article is fluff and filler designed to make the article subject look notable. The book he wrote is more notable than the author, hence the original redirect from author article to book article My Uncle's Wedding. Article was resurrected today by likely sock of the article creator, indeffed user User:Kbabej (see current SPI on this user). If nothing else, article should be a permanent redirect to the book per WP:DENY due to continued sock activity. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BLP1E. Quis separabit? 03:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article as it is is currently very POV toward the subject, who is only semi-notable for one event. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Scorsese Eats a Cookie[edit]

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

I'm not sure why we have an article for a 20 second skit from Jimmy Kimmel Live!. Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable skit, no in-depth third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this little clip was intended to spoof Scorsese's speaking toward eating cookies in his describing acting methods, lacking commentary or analysis in reliable sources, it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No references. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). ƬheStrike Σagle 11:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1355 Magoeba[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there appear to be sufficient sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Included in five lightcurve studies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], an unusually high number, the most recent of which states that there are still unresolved ambiguities in its rotational period which has led to the suggestion that it's a binary [6]. Also included in a spectrascopic study [7], a polarimetric study [8], and a resonance simulation [9], and briefly mentioned as having an unusual orbit in another article [10]. It all adds up to plenty of attention, and I think a pass of WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per above - I've been confirmed. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1964 Luyten[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing useful found on Google Scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. Most of the hits were for articles about stars that happened to have the year 1964 and Luyten's name near each other, unrelated to this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Davewild (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1935 Lucerna[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: non-notable based on paucity of sources. Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:54, 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1292 Luce[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Single photometry study found, which had little more than data.[11] Non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Besides the study mentioned above, it's a line in a table of a paper about clustering asteroids into families [12] but I don't think that helps much in establishing any kind of notability for this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Can we do mass nominations for these, when possible? Neutrality^talk 04:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neutrality, there was a lot of opposition when an attempt was made at bundling and an agreement that they would be looked at individually. It's tedious and takes a while, but it will help bring the right result for each article. Boleyn (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1937 Locarno[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: little available on Google Scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Included as a line in two tables in a spectroscopic study of 88 inner-main-belt asteroids [13], but it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Beatty (author)[edit]

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

Written by paid editor asa advertising for an author publishing his first book, a children's novel that, according to Worldcat is in only one library [14], referenced only to a book review in the no longer very reliable Kirkus. Some of his other activities rely on PR for non-notable science projects.

He might possibly be a notable technological entrepreneur, if an additional source can be found confirming his founding of Plex Systems--our article gives his boss as the founder. 2007 Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year sounds impressive, but not when it seems to be only for the Great Lakes region in a subject category.

The advertising purpose is best shown by the qualification of the subject as "author"--a npov writer would have picked "entrepreneur" of something of that sort--not author.

Needs to be blown up , and started over, if any one wants to do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This confirms him as the founder of Plex Systems but my searches in Factiva haven't found any substantial coverage about his work there so WP:BIO isn't met. As for being an author, I've come to the same conclusion as DGG that the Kirkus review is insufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are very short reviews in Publishers Weekly[15] and Library Journal[16] and some on blogs/social media, but not enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Can't find much about his other ventures either. Not notable. (I don't think the qualification "author" is anything other than a likely indication of where his notability might lie.) Colapeninsula (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and SmartSE lacks significant coverage and fails WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and maybe mention him as founder at Plex Systems?) - I searched a little more with "Plex Systems" because that looked like best place for results and I found nothing significant and notable aside from this (basically one link), this, this (a few too many press releases) and this (this last one mentions the 2007 Entrepreneur Award). He is not independently notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:06, 25 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanala Sagal[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a comedian, relying entirely on primary sources with not even one properly reliable source anywhere in the entire article — and where the most substantive claim of notability in the entire article is "has X number of fans on an internet social networking platform". No number of YouTube views or ReverbNation fans confers a notability freebie on a comedian who isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability which passes WP:CREATIVE, to earn an article the conventional way — we are not a venue for the commercial or public relations promotion of aspiring celebrities. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when valid sourcing is actually available. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources all seem to be primary, not secondary, unnotable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: article subject fails WP:N, WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 11:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battlegrounds 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant independent coverage on this mod. The1337gamer (talk) 19:28, 17 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) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First time doing this, not sure if this is the proper way or not.

Battlegrounds 2 is a 10 year old free source mod, there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites. It was one of the major mods for half life 2 back in the early 2000s, but its popularity has dropped. The main places it is still discussed our the website and moddb, which I have linked in the edited page for the mod on Wikipedia. Of course there are steam groups and gamer clan websites, but those didn't seem relevant for a wiki page. There are numerous videos on youtube showcasing the mod with views in the hundreds of thousands. In the modding community for half life 2, BG2 is fairly well known. I will continue to update the wiki page with screenshots and updates if that will help.

I will update the main page with some of these references as well. (Will_Hawke)

Bro Team plays Battleground 2 http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33838347 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/557427 http://www.moddb.com/mods/battle-grounds-2/reviews https://www.facebook.com/pages/Battlegrounds-2/110892168947170 https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Battle_Grounds_2 http://www.thecarnivoressaga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1152 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?374348-Revolutionary-War-Half-Life-2-mod-The-Battle-Grounds-II!

Forums, wikis, users reviews, and YouTube playthroughs are not reliable sources. Facebook page is not independent. None of these help establish notability on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How are user reviews for a free product not a reliable source? It's third party, as close to secondary sources as a free video game can get, since it's independent of the mod team. It's a video game, how else am I going to show sources on it if not from third party reviews or discussions? The moddb links show user reviews, media updates, press releases and so on. I'm not sure what else I can add. I did add a french review of one of the mod updates to the main Bg2 wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

User reviews are self published sources and should not be used in Wikipedia's coverage of video games. See WP:RS and WP:VG/USERREVIEW. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:
there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites
If that is the case, then this content is better off hosted on another wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and without independent, reliable coverage, it would be impossible to write an authoritative article. On Wikipedia notability for inclusion is judged by the GNG and its associated guidelines, which have specific criteria for link quality. In a sentence, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is explained at WP:42. – czar 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware the requirements for an entry were so stringent. Wikipedia has a reputation for being wildly unreliable. My understanding is that there is a period of seven days before deletion. I will speak with older members of the community to see if there is "coverage" of the mod that meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

Delete - per Czar's reasoning. Failing the WP:GNG due to no significant coverage in third party, reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You lot have obviously made up your minds to delete it regardless of the sources I proposed and this is simply going through the motions. Go ahead and delete the article and you won't waste anymore time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

It's not so much that, as much as that, if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case. Also, these generally run for 7 days unless there is a really overwhelming amount of support to keep or delete something. It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment... Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:
if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case.

You and your "associates" have made it perfectly clear, hence why I said to delete the page, either now or in due course.

It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment...

I thought I made it rather clear in the posts above and in the links provided that this is a rather old source mod played by a small community. I doubt we'll be flooded with comments. As you say, it's a "clean-cut case." I tried my best to provide a variety of sources that related to the mod, and they were not acceptable and that's an end to it. The mod can get exposure from other sites. Thank you all for your time. Unless this is your job, in which case you earned your wage.

Tally-ho Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

Delete as it seems more like an advert than an article --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary K. Estes[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF but still consensus needed. Mr RD 18:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Dr. Estes is a fellow of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These honors are extremely prestigious and indicate that Dr. Estes has made a significant impact on multiple fields of science. In addition, more information on publications and impact are being added to the article. S L Seston (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per SL Seston. Estes being a member of the IOM and NAS is enough to meet WP:PROF, as is the fact that she is the editor-in-chief of Current Opinion in Virology, a respected journal with an impact factor. Everymorning talk 22:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Nominator should consider withdrawing this ill-advised nomination. We're not ever going to delete an article on a national academy member as being insufficiently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per the above. I added references to the AAAS and NAS designations. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1636 Porter[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably), per NASTRO, redirected to list of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Single photometry study with some data and no description.[17] Praemonitus (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The study linked above is of 44 asteroids and doesn't provide the in-depth attention to this particular object needed to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1701 Okavango[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably), per NASTRO, redirected to list of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources available to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One lightcurve study [18] but it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed Ibn Tawus[edit]

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

Delete. While the subject of this article may be notable, the entire article violates WP:PEACOCK and falls short of a neutral position. The following sentences illustrate what I am talking about:

Sayyed Ibn Tawus (Arabic: سید ابن طاووس) was a prominent Shiite jurist
He was famous for meeting the twelfth Shiite imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi who according to Shiite was/ is living in occultation.
He is also famous for his library and his numerous works
One of his forefathers was a handsome man with ugly legs
His famous children were known by the name of their mother.
When Hulagu Khan conquered Baghdad, it is famous that he asked the Scholars of the city
It is famous that Ibn Tawus had direct contact with Muhammad al-Mahdi

 Ormr2014 | Talk   15:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:PEACOCK is not a reason for to propose AfD. Notability is what we are looking for - it seems there are suitable sources for notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article appears to be notable. I would guess that the editor(s) who created the article used peacock terms to demonstrate that the subject of the article was notable. Whilst that was a stylistic error, the error is correctable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, it would require a complete rewrite. In such cases, despite the notability of the subject matter, deletion is completely acceptable (See Starting from Scratch).

The use of Peacock terminology does not substantiate notability and even if that were the intent of the author, it still violates WP:Peacock. Ormr2014 | Talk 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that require complete rewrite are not necessarily suitable for deletion; they are suitable for rewrite. If you see an article that is clearly WP:PEACOCK, the action you should take is to rewrite the text or least just tag it. Please see WP:BEFORE. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It should be rewritten or tagged with the Peacock or Peacock inline templates,not to be deleted.Salman mahdi (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The peacock terms are removed now. Hadi (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the Birth and family life section, I added more information about his nomination and its reason. The peacock terms is referred to Tawus means in English and is not referred WP:PEACOCK. Another reasons that mentioned above, was edited with other users.Papeli44 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who speaks Persian please explain this user that WP:PEACOCK has nothing to do with the subject's name; nor does confusing and/or pretending to confuse the two things repeatedly make him any more or less notable.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders Feder:Please read the article and then talk in this page. I added more information about Ibn Tawus name. I reed the WP:PEACOCK and know about it. Also, I explained that all problems solved. I think you have more problem with topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Papeli44 (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a basic course in human social skills. You are clearly incompetent.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can think that I am incompetent and your mind is not important for me.Papeli44 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Papeli44 (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear now, with only the nominator still supporting deletion Davewild (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Herath[edit]

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

Non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. The individual, Charitha Herath, was a minor government official and a non-notable academic. Essentially this article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Dan arndt (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep - sources Wikicology found support GNG Delete per nom - minor coverage but not enough needed —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:- Subject of the article is a Senior Public official and former Chairman of Central Environmental Authority. Subject of the article meet WP:GNG Per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I found Lankae News, Colombo telegraph, News First, Lanka News, Sunday observer, BBC News, Vivalanka News, Global Tamil News, Srilankans News, Lanka Channels, Ceylon Today, Lanka Sri News, Sri Lanka Catering to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Wikicology shows some notability. AlbinoFerret 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because a person exists does not necessarily make them notable. Essentially the individual should meet WP:BIO or WP:NACADEMIC, in this case we have a minor bureaucrat/minor academic that does not appear to have achieved anything significant or notable. None of the references cited by User:Wikicology seem to establish anything otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot be serious! Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia often keep articles on the basis of notability and not achievement. Subject of an article need not meet every criteria. These one clearly meet WP:GNG and the sources provided is not only an evidence of existence but notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology if you consider that your references establish the subject's notability then why haven't you included then in the article to demonstrate how. Dan arndt (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist as references for multiple reasons and they are primarily used to validate claims on Wikipedia. I really don't have the time to expand the article so why the need to add citations? For example, if am interested in written on his criticism, I may find Global tamil News helpful and therefore add it to the article. That's how things work here. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so whilst you consider the individual is notable you don't believe that the article should include those referenced sources that you believe establish its notability. The references in the article clearly do not establish notability merely that he is a minor bureaucrat for a junior government agency and a non-notable academic. Dan arndt (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done he clearly meets WP:GNG. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:18, 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, Davewild (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I changed my vote to keep —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:11, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Yi Xing[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One study [19] motivated by a flyby that never materialized. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect per WP:DWMP: being a Mars resonating asteroid, it was also a data point on a study of resonant orbits.[20] Still not enough though. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 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) 15:28, 17 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. There's a paper on it and another minor planet, but it does not appear to be significant coverage. ― Padenton|✉ 22:01, 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity[edit]

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

non notable book. only 68 holdings in worldcat. One mention in a bibliography does not make for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by a mention in a bibliography. The book used as a source is not a listing of other books; it's a book about homosexuality, and discusses Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity among other books. Could you please explain what you mean, DGG? The fact that only one source is provided in the article does not mean that other sources do not exist or could not be added. If you look up Kenneth Zucker's Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents, for example, you will find that Zucker (who is a well known figure) reviewed Rekers's book in 1984 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. I must also note that Wikipedia:BKCRIT nowhere says that a book's notablity depends on the number of holdings in worldcat. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert any notability and does not pass WP:NBOOK. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have any of the delete voters above even bothered to consider that Zucker's review would help establish notability? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added an additional source to establish notability, an article published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is a reputable peer-reviewed publication. I now believe the article meets the first of the five criteria given at Wikipedia:BKCRIT: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. One ref requires an account and another only mentions the book in passing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you're arguing that the article should be deleted because "one ref requires an account"? When, exactly, did that ever become a valid reason for deleting an article? What basis does it have in policy? Articles do need to be properly cited, but a ref that "requires an account" is a perfectly valid source. Is there some special reason why you would make such a specious deletion argument? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Alan Rekers (the author). The Zucker review appears a valid source, but WP:BOOK requires multiple in-depth reviews. We don't need to have an article on every book Rekers wrote, especially as the main article sets out his beliefs and theories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It requires significant coverage from multiple sources, and I believe this has been provided. Zucker's article and LeVay's book are the two key sources. Your other argument is equivalent to (for example) arguing that articles about Freud's individual books should be deleted because of the existence of the article Sigmund Freud; the fact that there is an article about an author is never a reason for deleting articles about his books. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Freud's books are discussed in many sources, and his ideas are so complicated and subject of so many interpretations it is completely unfeasible to cover them in one article. I don't see hundreds of scholarly works on Rekers. If by chance you can name a Freud book that genuinely isn't discussed in third party sources, I would support a merge or other treatment.

The policy of merging non-notable books is supported by WP:BKMERGE. Zucker's article is certainly one source, but LeVay's appears to be a brief mention, not an in-depth review (indeed not any kind of a review): WP:BKCRIT requires the book to be "the subject" of multiple articles or reviews, not just mentioned in passing. If you can show LeVay provides in-depth discussion, that would help. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is LeVay's discusion of the book in full: "Later Rekers began to reveal a virulent antipathy toward homosexuality. In his 1982 book, Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity, Rekers described homosexuality as a 'promiscuous and perverted sexual behavior,' and he bemoaned the fact that 'homosexuality has been sold to the unwary public as a right between consenting adults.'" It may be brief, but I don't consider it trivial. More importantly, I've found a source that discusses the book in much more detail: Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and School Work in the Twentieth Century, by Jackie M. Blount. It says that Rekers's book was influential; I've added the source. You can check it yourself on Google Books; see here. I would ask you and the other delete voters to reconsider your position. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would accept a merge to the author. I should have thought of that initially. We could justify a separate article perhaps on the basis of the added material, but I think it would be more helpful merged, and according to WP:N, we can choose to do that. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me what the advantage of a merge would be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:48, 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, Davewild (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to say keep. It's clear how it is significant and It has plenty of mentions. This article in the Village Voice refers to as the author's "classic book" —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an independent article. I was able to find two books on Questia that cite the book and at least six newspaper articles, five of which specifically mention the book in the context of Rekers' rentboy scandal. Rekers himself is historically significant given his influence on LGBT rights and his "expert" testimony in court cases, thus supporting criteria No. 6 of WP:NBOOK.- Mr X 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what your argument actually supports is a merge to Rekkers, if the book is significant in his work. He's not so famous that any book of his is necessarily notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing an argument there; there is no basis for a merge. There are enough sources that discuss and analyse this book independently of the author to show that it is independently notable. The discussion has gone on long enough and can be ended; it's at least a no consensus result. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please end this discussion? It has dragged on for more than two weeks now, and even if there isn't a consensus to keep the article, there is at least no consensus to delete it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Averis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Last AfD only closed as no consensus because it failed to attract any comments. Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I can only find references to Averis as a last name —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The following two sources [21] [22] were all I could find in terms of reliable source coverage. They are just passing mentions and so don't establish notability. Everymorning talk 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried a couple google searches with different keyword combos, didn't have luck with a single link. Earflaps (talk) 00:16, 23 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 Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guidelines as an individual article, and redirect seems to fit most rationales best. Davewild (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Smart[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability. I don't think being a country's ambassador will suffice on its own. Dmol (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. being from a major country doesn't add to notability either. No inherent notability of ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are news results about him in English and French. Being an ambassador for a country as prominent as the UK is generally notable as typically only people of high esteem are given this role. Elgatodegato (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is no inherent notability about being from the uk. Also, please provide actual links to indepth coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a lack of detailed coverage, just a few lines on the UK reopening an embassy in Madagascar. He's not been involved in any important diplomatic events/crises; UK-Madagascar relations are not particularly important (it was never a British colony, there's not a lot of trade, no wars or disputes); and WP:GNG is not met. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar (and unlink in that page) as proposed at WP:DIPLOMAT. Stanning (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect not Merge Ambassadors have no inherent notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC) Change to redirect to help build consensus Jbh ^Talk 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as opposed to redirect or delete) as suggested to the List. That target could use some citations/references. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted per request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it would help build consensus, I would be happy with a redirect. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 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 speedily deleted by User:BDD per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy and COI ducks[edit]

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

Creator request - User Sandbox draft that has been archived Atsme^☎️📧 14:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Speedy delete - looks like I used the wrong Twinkle tag.. Can a speedy delete template be added now? Thx --Atsme^☎️📧 14:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Yes, you can add it now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - hope I did it correctly. What next? Do I need to delete anything else? --Atsme^☎️📧 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it looks good! An admin hopefully will delete it shortly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:56, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged here. The notion of a merge for these two articles can continue to to be discussed at Talk:List of rail accidents (2010–present) if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Heimdal train derailment[edit]

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

This derailment, along with 2015 Galena train derailment, which I am nominating also, seem a lot like a case of WP:NOTNEWS. They caused no deaths or injuries, no serious damage to infrastructure other than the cars that derailed and caught fire, and no long term effects in the railroad industry or quality of life in the town. Within a few days, everything went back to normal, coverage for both was very brief and routine, and with the Philadelphia Amtrak crash taking over airwaves, they have pretty much become distant memories. List of rail accidents (2010-present)#2015 already has an entry for both derailments that is sufficient in covering them. I have seen worse incidents on the rails that we do not have articles on, including a few in the NYC Subway, but we are not going to have articles on every single rail accident and derailment in history, are we?

The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support delete per nom - news event that did not have lasting coverage —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is still about a railway accident, regardless of any injuries or deaths. In fact, this article is listed in the template {{2015 railway accidents}}. Paul Badillo (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how things work. If it is not notable enough to make any long term impact, it does not need to be kept. Wikipedia does not keep articles of events that are forgotten in a few days. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. TL565 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Not even close to being notable as the Philadelphia accident. TL565 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This derailment involved tankers carrying crude oil, a dangerous cargo. Such a derailment would be catastrophic if it happened within Philadelphia, which could easily happen.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But these accidents did not happen in Philly, did they? They happened in two rural towns and everything is back to normal there. No one is talking about them anymore. These derailments are really no different than accidents involving trucks carrying dangerous cargo, so does that mean we should create an article every time a tanker truck crashes and explodes on a highway or something like that? The Legendary Ranger (talk)`
Delete both per nom. We don't need articles on every freight train derailment. In these two cases, there is nothing that stands out as particularly noteworthy, unlike the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster. Both accidents are covered in the relevant list, and that should be sufficient. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into List of rail accidents (2010–present). There are several accidents listed on that page that don't even have their own articles and it lists details about those accidents as well. Paul Badillo (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So did you change your mind? You said "Keep" earlier. TL565 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into List of rail accidents (2010–present), essentially per Mjroots. Railway accidents aren't presumptively notable. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual situation, the derailment involved tankers carrying a dangerous cargo. 91.124.171.7 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. No one even remembers this event at this point. The fact that barely anyone has replied in almost a week proves this isn't notable. We don't need to create articles on every single incident that is just going to be forgotten about the next day. Extremely weak arguments coming from the keep crowd so far. It's just keeping for the sake of keeping. TL565 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fail WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 16:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. What could, hypothetically, have happened is immaterial. Choess (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both as per Paul Badillo. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Given the various past deletions I can't see this closing any other way. I'm going to salt all of the various entries and give the article creator a stern warning about re-creation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dipjyoti Borah[edit]

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

Twenty-year-old who, we are told, is yet another blogger and the founder of yet another website. No independent sourcing, and a search engine shows little that's neither humdrum nor self-promotion. Hoary (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to the fact that nothing is found in the web, this articles was already deleted in the past, basing on the non significance. And by the name of the creator it looks like that it's the same person. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Shirt58 has deleted it twice, and Peridon has deleted it once. -- Hoary (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My browser won't display the biographee's waytohow.com. It seems to be somehow related to plus.google.com/+Waytohow/posts, which hardly seems in any way noteworthy. I can view the source of waytohow.com. This has an extraordinary number of META tags with the attribute CONTENT; the value for one of these is "We provide Social network, Money making online, traffic tips,education tips, Programming. WayToHow.com, Android, WhatsApp, Facebook, Blogging Tips" and that for the other is "We provide tutorials and unique are articles relates to Making Money online, SEO, Blogging Tips and much more tricks and tips, Hot stuffs and film update". -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am rather surprised that I don't remember that name... That is one irritating site - it's slow to load, and has one of those annoying 'Subscribe to us' popups that keeps coming back. People make money out of things like that? I suppose that there are adverts that I don't see. I will say that he's put work into it. Anyway, that's nowt to do with notability. I usually reckon that if there is nothing worth investigating in the first 10 pages of ghits, there is unlikely to be anything still to come. I do use minuses to eliminate false hits. Didn't need to here. Four pages +1 hit - and nothing looking like an RS. Seems to be quite a bit of publicity seeking, which is, of course, why he's here. May be notable some day - Huffington Post didn't become notable overnight. In the meantime, I'd advise salt as well as delete. Peridon (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this version of the article is way better than the one I deleted - but creating a good-looking article is not the same as creating a Good Article. You can't make a suit of clothes out of Vogue magazines. You need cloth, and the right sort of cloth - and that's what isn't there yet. Peridon (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As DIPJYOTI BORAH it was deleted by #@Joe Decker: - that makes four. And the website article has been deleted too, and a lot of links to the blog removed. I'm thinking along the lines of WP:NOTHERE. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, salting seems a good idea. ¶ Incidentally, the author of the article seems unfamiliar with reality. -- Hoary (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Already past my bedtime, so others can attend to the fate of the the photo that currently appears in the article, the bizarrely (non-) licensed File:Blogger Dipjyoti Borah.jpg. -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Escambia County Fire Rescue[edit]

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

No sources at all. Links to poorly done website that doesn't support half the information on the page. Zackmann08 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see comment below. ~~Need more information from nominator~~: @Zackmann08: No sources is not a reason for deletion. Please explore WP:DEL-REASON and provide better reasoning: you need to demonstrate that the article doesn't meet WP:Notability requirements, Sadads (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimated there were 30,125 fire departments in the United States in 2010. That number has certainly risen in the past 5 years and this is just in the United States. While we could indeed include the article Escambia County Fire Rescue in Wikipedia, given the sheer number of such entities worldwide and the impracticality of including them all here, I believe that only the most notable fire departments should be included here. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ormr2014 and Zackmann08: From a cursorary glance at Google News: online there seems to be considerable commentary about this particular fire department, and the history/creation of it (for example, [23] , [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]); the organization has been covered by both a regional NPR station as well as two local publications, and I imagine if I dug more, there would be more; these alone makes it notable. I am not saying that we should collect an article on every fire department, but this one meets WP:GNG, and lack of sourcing in this particular article and/or a claim of too many stations are not deletion claims (they are reasons to improve the article). Both of you are making arguments that would matter if there is a limit to the size (or quality) of Wikipedia, but remember, we are WP:NOTPAPER and everything is WP:WORKINPROGRESS thus we do not have to be limited: rather we should be working to rescue this page. Please point to a specific WP:DEL-REASON or topic specific Notability guideline AND sufficient evidence that the research on the topic would be insufficient. Sadads (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not the White Pages! The whole article is addresses, phone numbers and statistics. Looking through the search doesn't show anything. I see a lot of these popping up about police and fire departments and I'm thinking that people are overestimating the number of hits that are returned in local press and are not familiar with WP:ORGDEPTH. Opening a new station, running a toys-for-tots program, commenting on a fire/incident, or having employees come/go (without any kind of scandal) are just normal, everyday things. This one about the possible cutbacks and also this one saying they're going to hold a vote on hiring more firefighters is not notable enough to support the department having its own article. It's entirely ordinary. Unless the firefighters become pyromaniacs or quit en masse, I don't see how it would merit more than one sentence. It just doesn't qualify as significant coverage on more than one event. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per no notability, couldn't find a lot about it through a Google search. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every fire department needs a Wikipedia article, and clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. As another editor pointed out "There [are] 30,125 fire departments in the United States" as of 2010. To create one and vouchsafe its notability is to open the floodgates. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the overwhelming majority of firefighters who risk their lives to save others but this article is well-meaning but parochial. Quis separabit? 12:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @[email protected]: well said. I would point out something though. There are also 39,044 cities in the United States. And they all DO get a page. Personally my issue is that the page has nothing cited and doesn't have anything supporting the claims it makes. If the Escambia County Fire Rescue website had any information about the stations and their apparatus, I would personally feel very differently about having this page. As it is though it basically just says "There is a fire department in this city." Which is great... I kind of assumed that there was... It doesn't add anything though. Just my 2 cents. --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exonucleophagy[edit]

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

? not notable

I searched this term in google and 1 got one result - a youtube video

I searched this term in pubmed and got no results: [30]

Also, the one reference in the article (which appears to be a secondary source) does not seem to use the term, although the document is not searchable and I have only made a quick scan [31]. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a neologism or a term that is a poor translation. I linked it to the French article (Exonucléophagie) but it does not have any additional sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It sounds like it could be a word, but I can find no evidence that this term is used by anyone other than Mark Bonner (a dentist who seems to be plugging his neologism through youtube and twitter) and Ragaa Issa (an Egyptian professor who is clearly not proficient in English and whose review citing Bonner was published in the typical kind of bottom-feeder journal that exploits non-Western academics). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does get one hit in Google scholar, but it's an unreliable source (on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers). Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karvir clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Have searched extensively since the allegedly disruptive PROD, including for other alternate spellings such as Karveer. The prodder was tagging several articles of this type, all created by the same person, and in fact was correct to do so. Some have since been deleted anyway. Sitush (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find anything, even by the term used for the corresponding Hindi article —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the topic is notable there are minimal standards for getting this topic included in Wikipedia. This does not meet WP:GNG for inclusion based on the content provided. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 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 userfy. The consensus is that although the subject of the article is only marginally notable at this time, with improvement and incubation, the article has the potential to become worthy of inclusion in the future. Since Drchriswilliams (talk · contribs) has volunteered to work on the article, I have userfied the article to User:Drchriswilliams/Ryan Alexander Dewar. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alexander Dewar[edit]

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

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial support. The article has a lot of references, but they are trivial in nature. Most are either one line comments about the individual or do not even mention the article subject. reddogsix (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Lots of references, but mainly passing mentions. Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG as a result. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Following Guidlines, May Require Editing Opossed to Deletion - Following the links to notability and inclusion guidelines, the source uses secondary sources and multiple newspaper articles and websites, as well as film sites. The article is notable but may require structural help from other editors to provide fuller use of the links included.Editorincrime (talk)
Editorincrime's interpretation is not correct. The article has been nominated for deletion. This does allow a small amount of time for any problems to be rectified before a decision is made. The nomination for deletion is around notability. As a filmmaker there will need to be enough evidence within the article, that the subject can demonstrably meet the criteria set out in WP:CREATIVE. There are many links that have been put in the article but this will not be enough to stop a decision to delete. Good quality sources are considered to be those written by journalists and published in national newspapers. Appearing in IMDB does not demonstrate notability. Also anyone can put some unchecked promotional material on a blog, so the inclusion of pages from someone's blog generally isn't viewed as helping establish notability on Wikipedia. So, my advice to anyone who thinks that this article is worth keeping, I would suggest you register a "keep" vote on this page but more importantly that you make good use of the few days remaining before any decision on notability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:26, 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 03:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve References are significant but needs structural improvement Kemosakeyouknow (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC) — Kemosakeyouknow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Kemosakeyouknow (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Musicsource87 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Comment - The references are far from significant. They are at best trivial in nature. reddogsix (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reddogsix appears to be relentlessly harnessing a disruptive and unhelpful approach at improving the article as well as assigned images on wikimedia commons through attempted speedy deletion of public domain imagery. Please be constructive in nature with suggestions of improvement and sourcing further links and data or edits within the article as we appreciate your comments, suggestions and advice. As above, contest your personal view using the word trivial sources pertaining national and local press, alternative film websites such as IMDB, official filmmaker site. Written magazine editions also exist though not online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysod (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) — Rysod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As you have acknowledged you are the subject of the article, I suggest there is a bias in your comment. I suggest you read you read WP:AGF before responding again to my comments. I will repeat what was said before, "The article has a lot of references, but they are trivial in nature. Most are either one line comments about the individual or do not even mention the article subject." This is trivial coverage. Your comment that IMBD is a usable source shows your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia notability works. IMDB is far from independent. Read Drchriswilliams above for more help. It is the author's burden to insure the article meets Wikipedia inclusion standards. If the support does not exist, then per Wikipedia guidelines, it is not notable per Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment: I have tried quite hard to improve what (at the time it was nominated) was a very badly written article. I have to say that reddogsix has also made several constructive edits and I cannot see what there is to be gained by anyone suggesting otherwise. Unfortunately I have not seen enough evidence that WP:CREATIVE has been met, nor WP:GNG. This filmmaker has a lot to be proud of, but has not yet received the level of coverage needed to demonstrate the notability that is required of the subject of a Wikipedia article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the classic, marginal, and up and coming creative person. Perhaps we can re-list this debate again? I would not be against userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (in response to Bearian's suggestion about userfication). I had considered userfication previously and so I feel I should explain why I hadn't initially pursued this. I put in quite a lot of work to improve the content and rework material of this article so that it was in an appropriate format for Wikipedia. This also included some efforts to educate a major contributor- Rysod, who was going back and reapplying edits that were causing problems such as overlinking. However, a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's Manual of Style is not the major issue. I still have concerns about the role of this editor which are not resolved. It has been suggested that the creator of this article, Rysod has a significant conflict of interest to declare, but this editor has not made any declaration relating to this. There is a maintenance tag relating to this which would need to be removed for userfication to occur. Rysod has also attacked another editor when they were trying to intervene against suspected copyright violations- there has been no retraction of this nor any apology. This may have put other editors off working on the article- it has now been been 11 days since anyone has made any edits to the article. So I would be against userfication to the user namespace of creator Rysod. If the outcome of this discussion is userfication, I would be happy for the article to be moved into my own user namespace, having already become quite familiar with the subject matter and the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchriswilliams (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy- I agree with Bearian's assessment. There's indication he is on the rise but he hasn't had enough notable projects yet. Perhaps userfy and improve. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: Having outlined my concerns and having given further thought to recent comments, I have withdrawn my vote for deletion, I'm now more confident that efforts to userfy the content of this article would not be futile. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:04, 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) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lipman[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on an inadequately supported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable at all. It clearly fails WP:SOCCER. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:37, 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of biggest economies[edit]

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

Unsourced, not verifiable. All economic content is missing. The talk page suggests that this list is based on an algorithm developed by the author. jergen (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as duplicate - already covered by Lists of countries by GDP. All sources I found use GDP as criteria - [32], [33] - —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete. There are no sources and no explanation for the criteria used in determining this list (and the explanation on the talk page doesn't really help). But it seems like a fairly reasonable search term, so perhaps redirect to Lists of countries by GDP? Mr Potto (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Staszek Lem is right, just delete it. Mr Potto (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no redirect. Too vague term, "biggest economy". One can invent a zillion names, List of richest countries, List of wealthiest states, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to /Central_Council_of_Homoeopathy. Its not very clear that is much to merge from thus discussion but agreement that this is best discussed in the context of the central article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery[edit]

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

Comment: Although I am ~~neutral and also~~ the creator of this page, I am still marking it for AfD as an editor feels that these article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please vote as deemed fit. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as creator has requested deletion —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AKS.9955: By listing this article as an AfD, you have voted FOR deletion. If you're neutral or against deletion, you should not nominate an article to be deleted, but discuss it with the other editor on the talk page. You should withdraw this asap or it will be speedily deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- By specifically saying he is not voting for deletion, Mr Singh is *not* voting for deletion! This is a discussion, not a mindless rule-driven bureaucracy. Mr Potto (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, per the guidelines of AfD, the nominator's submission of an article for deletion "counts" as a vote in favor of deletion. Additionally, as creator and main contributor of the page, he will bypass the discussion process and the article will be speedily deleted per WP:G7. If you want to have a discussion, the appropriate place is on the talk page for the article, not by creating an AfD discussion page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - The countless editors and administrators who have listed articles at AfD neutrally would beg to disagree. There's no policy justification for claiming that the author supports deletion when he/she explicitly stated they do not. ― Padenton|✉ 17:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have, on several occasions, made procedural nominations at AfD without expression a view that the article should be deleted. I have also made nominatiosn as proxy for IP editors in the past. And in any case, a speedy deletion because "Creator requests it" is only available if no other editors have made significant contributions. Once other editors have contributed work, it is Wikipedia's article, not the original creator's, and the creator is not privileged to demand deletion via a speedy, even shoud s/he wish to do so. It is unusual for the creator of an article to request an AfD discussion, but if other editors have expressed doubt about the appropriatness of the article, it is not unreasonable to ask for community input, and this is one way to do that. DES ^(talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comments above (about me, the 'other editor') are false. I indicated that the articles appear promotional and unencyclopedic, but did not say that it was WP:SPAM. Two admins agreed that while not necessarily failing the WP:GNG and WP:SPAM criteria, that those issues are separate to the actual reasons I indicated for redirecting the articles. Further background is available at User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015#B.H.M.S. & D.H.M.S., User talk:JamesBWatson#User:AKS.9955 and User talk:Bgwhite#Opinion. This AfD has been lodged to make a point, despite the fact that the redirects were fine as they were, as already indicated by five editors prior to the AfDs (myself, a third opinion respondent, two admins, and another reverting editor).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, why are you trying to influence people's opinion by giving your side of the story? I could have also written lengthy stuff during nomination BUT have let others form their opinion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said, repeatedly misrepresented what the admins said, and you lodged an entirely false vandalism report about me. Do you seriously imagine that I should not give 'my side' after you make claims about what I supposedly 'feel'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—Мандичка, I understand this very well and agree with you. Jeffro77 was told by admin Bgwhite in discussion User talk:Bgwhite#Opinion that he should have nominated this page for AfD; even I told him to do so BUT he has not done that and is ignoring all the advises given. Please read all the discussions he has provided, and there are few more and you will notice that he himself is not sure of why these articles should be redirected. Thus far, he has talked about WP:GNG, WP:Promotion, WP:COI and everything else. Anyway, I did what he was supposed to do - nominate the articles for deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is true that Bgwhite indicated that it could have gone to AfD earlier, he also indicated that placing the redirects instead was also appropriate, which made the AfD process redundant thereafter. As such, the point is indeed to waste people's time (in addition to being another opportunity for AKS.9955 to misrepresent what I actually said about why the articles were not suitable).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, I hate to do this but you are going on and on and quoting Bgwhite out of context. What is said was, quote; Jeffro77, I understand why you did the redirect and would agree with you. However, after the 2nd round of reverts it became an edit war. At the point you should have taken the articles to AfD and let others not involved decide. He clearly advised you to nominate this for AfD and in the past I too have said that. You are not nominating because you know that it does not fail WP:GNG or WP:SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AKS.9955: nothing in these responses changes anything. You've requested an article you've recently made be deleted, and nobody is arguing it should be kept. Whatever your motives are is irrelevant. This is speedy deletion per WP:G7. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it is *not* a G7 speedy deletion request, and we know that because the nominator has said so! Mr Potto (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite used the past tense about an AfD, and gave no indication that an AfD was necessary after it had been redirected again instead, which Bgwhite specifically said was appropriate and he agreed with it. The AfD after that is merely a tendentious effort to make a point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it a speedy deletion request. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. —Мандичка, I agree, opinions are irrelevant. Also, just because the article creator has nominated the article, does not mean it has to be mandatorily deleted. It still has to go through voting process; right? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no voting process for articles that qualify for speedy deletion. That's why it's called "speedy" deletion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has not been nominated for speedy deletion, is it? You have merely voted for a speedy deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has, because you nominated it. Therefore it automatically qualifies for speedy deletion. People who want to keep a page they created do not nominate them for deletion, because that would be ridiculous, as this discussion is, and would only result in the page being deleted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, an article creator nominating their own article for discussion regarding possible deletion is not a speedy deletion request. If you're not able to understand that, at least the closing admin will and should discount your insistence that it is. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the claim that there is something amiss with nominating your own article for deletion and then !voting against deletion. If I create an article and other editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted but don't know enough to list it at AfD, I might very well list it myself to give the opinion of the newbies a fair hearing. Nothing wrong with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not to my knowledge - no. Any article creator cannot simply get an article zapped just like that. Since AfD has been opened, let majority take a call. With that intention I came here. Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can indeed request speedy deletion of an article they have created where they are the only substantial contributor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, but Mr Singh clearly hasn't - and we know that, because he has said so. Mr Potto (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to review WP:G7. That is EXACTLY what happens. If you don't want the article deleted, then you need to withdraw the deletion and just have a normal discussion on the article talk page. Nobody nominates an article for deletion and at the same time wants it to be kept. Please go through all the archives and find a time that has ever happened. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have read G7 just fine, but it is irrelevant because this is not a speedy deletion request. The fact that you are apparently unable to think of a reason why someone might nominate an article of their own for a deletion discussion without actually wanting it deleted speaks only of the paucity of your own imagination. Thankfully, the rest of us are not bound by your limits. Anyway, if you really ~~are so stupid that you~~ think someone saying "My personal opinion is not to delete the article" means they're requesting a speedy deletion, then ~~I'll waste no more of my time on you~~ I honestly don't see how I can help. Mr Potto (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (striking some unnecessary rudeness Mr Potto (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If a creator of an article wants to generate discussion about keeping the article, that is what the talk page of the article is for. Only a moron would nominate their own article for deletion just to generate some discussion. As I said, please find any other time this has occurred, especially since it is guaranteed to make me laugh myself silly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, right at the start of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I don't see anything anywhere that says the creator of an article must not use AFD to request a deletion discussion and that they are only allowed to do it on the article talk page. I also can't find anywhere where it says article talk pages are where discussions about whether an article should be deleted or kept should be held. Or anywhere that says that if an article creator does start a discussion request at AFD then that is automatically taken as a G7 speedy deletion request. If you can find the policy pages that say any of that, I'll humbly apologize for my error. Mr Potto (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, @Wikimandia:, after all this I see you have just tagged the article with a G7 speedy deletion request! For the last time, the article's creator has not requested speedy deletion! I have removed the G7 tag. Do not put it back, or you'll be seeing a request for admin action against you. Mr Potto (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Potto, I noticed that, you have not at any point in this joke of an AfD, suggested keep or delete. Either contribute to this AfD or go somewhere else and be productive. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption of AFD discussion. Mr Potto (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia:, I STRONGLY object to the abusive word moron used by you for me. Either you put an apology here OR I will be forced to report you. Make no mistakes here and learn to be civil during discussions. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~appears promotional, with no reliable~~ inadequate independent coverage of the subject, so fails notability as assessed by WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC) updated Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Independent and additional reference added and available in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comments:

Are there any specific notability guidelines applicable here, or is it just WP:GNG?

I don't see this article as promotional as it is written in neutral language and isn't highlighting any specific institution in which one can study for this qualification.

I wonder if the contents should perhaps be merged with Central Council of Homoeopathy and this title redirected to that? The Central Council of Homoeopathy does seem to be notable in its own right, and as part of that article then I'd think the diploma it awards would be of encyclopedic value even if it was not sufficiently notable for its own article. Anyway, that's just a thought and I'll come back to it later when more people have had chance to comment. Mr Potto (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (replacing with !vote below. Mr Potto (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Mr Potto, what matters here is a vote. You may decide to vote keep or delete as you deem fit. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I appreciate that. But Merge/Redirect is also a common accepted outcome at AFD, and I want to withhold any actual !vote until I've learned more and heard more opinions. Mr Potto (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. AfDs are not a vote at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Mr Potto, This is the intent of the entire exercise and I am glad you are looking at it that way. As a matter of fact, I had said the same thing in one of the discussions previously. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the first couple of sentences with a note to the effect that homeopathy is almost universally regarded as a form of psuedoscientific quackery to Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973. Delete In its current form it clearly violates both WP:NFRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE. Discussimg or referencing patently Fringe and Psuedoscientific subjects on Wikipedia is pretty strictly limited in order to prevent the project from being used to promote this kind of nonsense. See WP:FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete per Andy's comment below. I don't think this meets GNG. Beyond which the standard for notability is somewhat higher when the subject is FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the in-depth coverage in third-party sources required to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Not because of WP:PROFRINGE - this reads about as NPOV as you can describe the topic, and as long as that's the case, it might be a Certificate of Turtle Appreciation for all we should care - but because as a detail related to Central Council of Homoeopathy this doesn't seem worth an article on its own.-- Elmidae (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle appreciation is not a pseudoscientific form of medical quackery. Homeopathy is. WP:FRINGE does not allow fringe subjects to be introduced without disclaimers. The article presents the degree in a way that is no different than a degree in veterinary science. That's a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree; the fringe caharacter of the degrees subject is at one remove here. It's a real degree offered by a real academic institution, which is all the article states. Judgements on the subject are misplaced here - they can be had at the multiple links to homeopathy in the article. In the same way that not every mention of Scientology is an automatic promotion or legitimization and requires an immediate paragraph noting how that volcano hydrogen bomb thing doesn't really work that way, not every mention of homeopathy requires a disclaimer. - Anyway, I'll not be getting into this further and/or even touch any homoepathy-related article - too much rancor.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kudos to Arun Kumar Singh for putting their article up for a vote in this manner.-- Elmidae (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Elmidae. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, Mr Singh has behaved most honorably in bringing his article here for others to judge, and the bad faith attacks he has suffered are shameful. Mr Potto (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Nominating an article for deletion requires a proper nomination rationale - one that explains why Wikipedia policy supports deletion. 'Nominating' an article while arguing that the article shouldn't be deleted is a misuse of the AfD process. What should have occurred is discussions on the article talk page over the issues raised in this AfD - and at that point, if discussions couldn't resolve the issues, it would of course be open to someone who supported deletion to raise an AfD. An AfD is not a substitute for other methods of dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:AFD in its entirety, and what I get from it is that using AFD to start a discussion about whether an article should be deleted is precisely what it is for. I agree that a rationale is required, and the nominator provided one in saying that someone else thinks "this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM". It seems to me that AFD is exactly the right forum to ask "Should X be deleted?" Mr Potto (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors should base nominations on their own arguments, and not around "what someone else thinks" - they have no right to nominate an article on someone else's behalf unless they have been explicitly asked to. And if WP:AfD doesn't make this clear, it should. None of this mess would have occurred if proper procedures had been followed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, thanks for your time on this matter; I appreciate it (except for the non-civil & abusive language used). I am somewhat confident that the majority vote will be to either delete or merge it to another article. I am signing off for the day and perhaps by the time I wake up, this discussion would be closed and article deleted; hence my message now. For whatever its worth, I wish to put following for the record;

1) At any point in time I had no intention to introduce a non-worthy article to Wikipedia.

2) I respect the vote of the majority; either way and stand by the decision taken.

3) I personally was of the opinion that this topic was worthy of a page of its own due following reasons;

a) Courses are very well known, accorded by over 150 universities and colleges around the world (passes WP:GNG).

b) Several hundred thousand students hold this degree.

c) Tone was neutral and not promotional (I have written over 130 articles so I understand these issues well) .

d) Article was well referenced with primary (Government of India) and secondary (news reports from India and other countries) sources.

e) Pseudoscience: I don't really give this lot of importance to this argument simply due to the fact if this was the case, several hundred articles (including few good articles) would not have existed on Wikipedia.

f) These articles were not a WP:SPAM

g) Does not fail WP:TONE

h) This is NOT a WP:FRINGE since this is real degree, based on real law of the land and real people study it after paying real money and spend real time. This is NOT a "Questionable science = Hypotheses".

i) My main intent of spending my personal time on Wikipedia is to enhance, improve and maintain the quality and quantity of information. And with the same intent, I create every single page; especially if a) It has historic value and b) It has continuous value. In this case, this subjects had both.

j) The reason I did not make the articles a sub-section of the "Central Council of Homoeopathy" page was that these two subjects are more notable than the issuing authority itself. Personally, I did not even know my entire life that something like "Central Council of Homoeopathy" exists whereas I always knew what "Homoeopathy" and the two degrees are (just a layman opinion).

k) There is NO WP:COI as I have been accused of.

At this, I would like to thank Mr Potto and Elmidae for the kind words. Thank you everyone for your time and please don't forget that there is another article Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery under similar discussion that also requires voting. Once again, thank you for your time and I appreciate your votes. Cheers Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a vote. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 'H'; Homeopathy is absolutely FRINGE. If a legal degree were granted in astrology it would be no less fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Central Council of Homoeopathy, which seems adequately sourced. Miniapolis 22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacks substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All that needs to be said about this is a sentence at the article for the issuing body that this is a degree they have. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per GNG, needs secondary sources. The issuing body might pass for notability, but there's no real indication of the diploma being notable in its own right beyond that. Anything needing to be said can be said in the Council's article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:- as promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of importance, not to mention the fact that homoeopathic medicine is an oxymoron. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Council of Homoeopathy. I don't see the notability needed to keep this as an article in itself, but as there's an article about the Central Council of Homoeopathy then it seems reasonable to describe the qualification that it awards in that article. As an aside, the fate of this article should not be determined by whether or not homeopathy is any good (and for the record, I'm on the side of the scientific majority that considers it bunk) but on notability applied from a neutral point of view. As far as tagging any homeopathy articles goes, I don't know what the rules are for that so I'll leave it to people who do know. Mr Potto (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some additional text and citations, and I suspect that many more could be found. It pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't think much of homeopathy personally, but given that India contains over 150 accredited schools awarding these degrees, with over 10,000 people taking up such degrees a year (according to the sources I just added) and literally millions of people who make use of homeopathic medicine, it is notable. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the broader subject does not necessitate an article about an accreditation that can be adequately covered in a sentence or two at the suggested redirect target.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Central Council of Homoeopathy. For reasons given by Mr Potto.Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery[edit]

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

Comment: Although I am ~~neutral and also~~ the creator of this page, I am still marking it for AfD as an editor feels that these article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please vote as deemed fit. Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as creator has requested deletion —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The comments above (about me, the 'other editor') are false. I indicated that the articles appear promotional and unencyclopedic, but did not say that it was WP:SPAM. Two admins agreed that while not necessarily failing the WP:GNG and WP:SPAM criteria, that those issues are separate to the actual reasons I indicated for redirecting the articles. Further background is available at User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015#B.H.M.S. & D.H.M.S., User talk:JamesBWatson#User:AKS.9955 and User talk:Bgwhite#Opinion. This AfD has been lodged to make a point, despite the fact that the redirects were fine as they were, as already indicated by five editors prior to the AfDs (myself, a third opinion respondent, two admins, and another reverting editor).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the point is to waste people's time? —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect the first couple of sentences with a note to the effect that homeopathy is almost universally regarded as a form of psuedoscientific quackery to Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973. Delete In its current form it clearly violates both WP:NFRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE. The article does not appear to meet the standards for coverage in GNG and certainly fails the higher standard found in NFRINGE. Discussing or referencing patently Fringe and Psuedoscientific subjects on Wikipedia is pretty strictly limited in order to prevent the project from being used to promote this kind of nonsense. See WP:FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Ad Orientem. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does nothing to establish notability - we need evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Central Council of Homoeopathy; this article is similar to Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery. Miniapolis 22:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this degree in quackery lacks substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All the would be necessary is a sentence at the article for the issuing body saying that this is a thing they offer. Reyk _YO! 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 02:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources. I suppose that should make the article more powerful, but only if you believe in homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just imagine how good it would be if it had 0.0000001% of a reliable independent secondary source! Mr Potto (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Central Council of Homoeopathy. I don't see the notability needed to keep this as an article in itself, but as there's an article about the Central Council of Homoeopathy then it seems reasonable to describe the qualification that it awards in that article. Mr Potto (talk) 11:17, 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.

ANI[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ore Cup[edit]

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

I would carry forward the deletion arguments made at the first AfD regarding notability and I would add further that this minor rivalry ended after only three seasons. Clearly fails WP:GNG and the appropriate sports notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy the WP:SIGCOV guidelines. The two lead references which aren't currently deadlinks fall under the "routine coverage" definition. In both cases they acknowledge the existence of a trophy, but a trophy alone is not enough to justify an article. I'll also note that in ref No. 4, the "rivalry" is said to exist despite the teams having never played a game – this is obviously intended to be promotional rather than informative – and in ref No. 5 there is reference to a predicted rivalry, not an existing rivalry. Redirection to Gold_Coast_United_FC#Rivalries would also be an acceptable outcome. Aspirex (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy the WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Ciaran106 (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy the WP:SIGCOV guidelines.–Davey2010^Talk 03:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be quite a lot of sources confirming the existence of a trophy and a supposed rivalry but there doesn't seem to be enough detailed coverage to warrant an article in its own right. Don't know if redirecting is the right route but a mention in each of the clubs' articles could be an option. Hack (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes the cup exists, but this is simply a marketing tool to generate interest around games (of which there have only been a handful to date), it is not a notable competition in itself. A secondary consideration relates to the trophy as an indication of a rivalry. No indication of any level of significant / reliable coverage (the sort of which is found here) about the rivalry itself. Aspirex's comment above that references exist noting the rivalry before a game was played is key here. Although there are some nascent rivalries in A-League football, a lot of these were artificially created at the league's inception to hype the competition. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 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) 14:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpearIt[edit]

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

Unable to find substantive third party sources. Article reads largely like a resume and is mostly a list of papers and articles he's written. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMICS. --Non-Dropframe _talk 02:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to establish notability. Still looking for better references, but they do not to be available. reddogsix (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "SpearIt" have a rapper name? It seems terribly undignified for a lawyer. What happens if he becomes a judge? Le petit fromage (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment He has writen both academic papers and op-eds on prison, sentencing. Like Nom, I failed to find articles about him, rather than by him. His work, however, does get cited by other scholars. [34].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That citation looks to be about a few dozen, light years short of WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete User:Agricola44 is right, it's a paltry number of citations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:55, 23 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. Article was deleted by User:MBisanz and all versions of the article have been salted. At best this is something someone came up with WP:ONEDAY and at worst it's a complete hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaf markup language[edit]

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

Unable to find any third-party references to this newly-created markup language. It's just too soon to determine if it will ever pass WP:NOTE. Further, the article is written largely like a how to. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apparently Sphilbrick deleted this article earlier today. Perhaps a salting is in order. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails hard; no indication this even exists. Article has been redirected to Swaf and tag removed - I'm putting it back on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:44, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selling England by the Pound Tour[edit]

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

An indiscriminate collection of information, either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. No reason this needs to be a content fork of the parent album. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:NTOUR concert tours are notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Peter Gabriel's costume for this tour has generated independent discussion, making the tour itself notable. if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See e.g. Without Frontiers: The Life & Music of Peter Gabriel By Daryl Easle. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-your-favorite-prog-rock-albums-of-all-time-20120725/7-genesis-selling-england-by-the-pound-0033753 Genesis: The Complete Guide to Their Music By Chris Welch. Ross-c (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is an argument for keeping the "Tour" section of Selling England by the Pound, and that source does not talk about this tour using this name, presumably because this was not a tour but a series of more gigs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google shows that the tour is commonly named using the title from this article. Ross-c (talk) 06:01, 27 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) 09:17, 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, Esquivalience ^t 04:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: several passing mentions does not establish notability per WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 20:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 01:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this tour of a major band seems perfectly notable, especially as there are references to it even today. [35], [36], [37], [38]. I'm not quite sure why nominator thinks it wasn't actually a tour. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, but rather I suspect Wikipedia and other places have coined this tour name as a neologism and poor quality sources (one source you supplied is self published and one is a Wikipedia mirror) have picked it up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 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) 08:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Mafield[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and GNG. Unable to find any non-trivial third party sources. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy delete as article is tagged. No notability whatsoever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's been around a while and kept going, but I can't see any obvious evidence he's been picked up by anything significant. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 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 merge to National Academy of Inventors. I assume that this is the page that User:DGG is referring to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology and Innovation[edit]

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

Non-notable journey fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although it's not admissible, the editorial board comprises 14 people notable enough to have their own articles on here (university presidents etc); same with a large number of contributors. This makes me think twice about agreeing to delete; aren't there specific databases or something for academic and research journals? WorldCat was not helpful as "Technology and Innovation" is a very generic term. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too familiar with NJOURNAL. It would be great if User:DGG could take a look. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Society Incompetent press release as submitted. This is in part a peer-reviewed journal, though the article omits to say so & thus omits the most important single fact about the publication. (The journal publishes both peer-reviewed non-specialized technical content, and non-peer reviewed communications and comment). It also omits such basic things as the year it started publication,the earlier title (Technology) and forgot to link to the publishing society. For good measure, the section of what it covers (worded inappropriately as what it solicits manuscripts on) is a very close paraphrase. Most of the contents is inappropriate and designed to make an impression. For scientific journals, we publish the names of the editors in chief, we do not publish names of the editorial board and the contributors--the list of such for a major journal would include most or even all of the notable scientists in that field in the world. . When we do include the names of distinguished people with articles here, we just link to their article here--we never specific the position or the field. Any journal can easily have a very distinguished board by promising to accept their papers. This particular journal is published as a offshoot or what is basically a very high class academic and industrial lobbying group, and the obvious thing to do is to merge it. It does not meet the current key standard for peer-reviewed journals of being indexed in a selective indexing service, and we have no specific standards for magazines--circulation data can help with those, but none is given. I note that the ed. is a declared paid editor, but I hope he learns how to do it properly. None of the volunteers here are happy to have to do the work to fix things for which he earns the money. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The Worldcat entry is here [39], and shows that 2 libraries hold it, Library of Congress being one. LaMona (talk) 04:09, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Dismal failure of WP:NJournals. Not indexed in any selective database. The editor claims on her user page that she writes better than most editors here, which, I fear, does not reflect positively on her ability to evaluate her own contributions and abilities. --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per above clearly fails WP:NJournals.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per no notability standing on its own. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, delete. This is clearly a promotional page for non-notable journal. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly redirect to Luis Rocha (disambiguation). The disambiguation page has two entries with an accent mark over the letter "i" in the first name "Luís", so a redirect is in order. The nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion in the venue of AfD. If desired, further discussion can occur at RfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luís_Rocha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Luís Rocha

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

There are multiple people with Luis Rocha in the name, a disambiguation page was created rionbr (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue: As a redirect, this would be far better dealt with at WP:RfD. PWilkinson (talk) 11:30, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HH Kratu Das Ji Maharaj[edit]

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

Non notable per WP:BIO. Only primary sources cited. Agtx (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing good but I can't speak for non-English sources and there doesn't seem to be a move target. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 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 01:08, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1507 Vaasa[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Boleyn has about 255 AfDs for low numbered asteroids. All he cares about is CAT:NN and AfD is not cleanup. Deleting too many borderline asteroids is harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 12:24, 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 01:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: There is one photometric study with a paragraph of information.[40] Not much else though. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1385 Gelria[edit]

(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) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [41] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Could use some more eyes on this one ― Padenton|✉ 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:40, 10 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 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient sources; non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 17 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|✉ 22:04, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2504 Gaviola[edit]

(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) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:39, 10 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 01:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4080 Galinskij[edit]

(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: 4001–5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Two light curve studies: [42] +correction [43] but they don't say anything that would distinguish this object from others. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 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, ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 10 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 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: one paper is dedicated to the topic; the other has a paragraph. Not much of substance though. Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 17 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. Letter to the editor is not a WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉ 22:02, 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 Raghavendra Lawrence. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muni 4[edit]

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

WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Muni 4 Raghavendra Lawrence Kanchana 3 Raghava Lawrence Raghava Lawrence's next

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

Redirect for now to writer/dircetor Raghavendra Lawrence. We learned that just two weeks ago "Lawrence gets ready for 'Muni 4'". Plans are being spoken about, and that's enough for mention in his article, but not enough for one about the film itself. TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agree with MichaelQSchmidt's argument. Mr RD 10:41, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 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. Nomination Withdrawn (Non-Admin Closure).

Mohammed Rateb al-Nabulsi[edit]

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

I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliables sources to establish the subject notability. The {{Under construction}} tag on the article is a case of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I removed the tag since it has not been edited for several hours. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B/C you are search in English. i am work on it to find good sources, i am translate the article from Arabic to English, stay tuned.ahmadPHD (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 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 01:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage, meets GNG [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ... (al-Nabulsi is VERY famous person in the Islamic & Arab world ). ahmadPHD (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn:- I withdraw my nomination to Keep the article since the subject notability had been established. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:21, 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 both. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbor To Family, Inc.[edit]

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

Gordon Johnson (child welfare advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

No evidence of WP:ORG: Articles list only self-published sources, and no footnotes. Possible WP:COI articles from the same 2 or 3 users. Closeapple (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Also adding Gordon Johnson (child welfare advocate), which is mostly just a rehash of Neighbor To Family, Inc. --Closeapple (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 09:01, 10 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, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gordon Johnson (child welfare advocate) and Neighbor To Family, Inc. - Self-promotional, fails WP:GNG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pure advertisement. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Neighbor To Family, Inc. and Gordon Johnson (child welfare advocate) — neither meets criteria for notability under WP:GNG or WP:INDEPENDENT. Attention seeking PROMO in my humble opinion. Quis separabit? 12:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) ― Padenton|✉ 21:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1506 Xosa[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is notable for a potential 292 hour rotation period. -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While 292 hours isn't necessarily a record-breaking rotation period, it is uncommonly long, so keep. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:44, 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 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: covered in three photometry studies, with one being a dedicated paper. There's just enough material to build a short article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove nomination per opinions given above. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 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) 08:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1888 Zu Chong-Zhi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One study [50] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 17 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 otherwise failing to provide significant commentary on the object. ― Padenton|✉ 21:52, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1674 Groeneveld[edit]

(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) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 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 01:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: non-notable object. Praemonitus (talk) 17:44, 17 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|✉ 21:42, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Guacolda[edit]

(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) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 10 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 00:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: Nothing found. Nothing at all. I had to double-check with the JPL SBDB to see if the name was correct. Praemonitus (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not mentioned by a single paper on google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surel's Place[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this small program DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A small program, but viable and on-going and unique to Idaho. kencf0618 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keepIt is new, but there is coverage [51], [52], [53], and more on a news google search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep given the coverage noted above (Thanks!) and the fact that Surel's Place is the only live-in artist-in-residence program in Idaho. kencf0618 (talk) 22:13, 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 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has sufficient coverage to prove GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some relevant photographs. kencf0618 (talk) 02:45, 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Like Me (EP)[edit]

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

Articles only source is a faulty link to AudioCastle, an illegal download site. After searching, EP seems to be a fan-compiled mix of unreleased acoustic tracks. Azealia911 _talk 01:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Removed artlces source to AudioCastle per it being an illegal download site, article now has no sources. Azealia911 _talk 20:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 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 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - No references at all. Maybe an EP she gave to her friends and family as gifts. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – No references, seems to be a fan compilation. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:17, 25 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpiceyChisquare Izu[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subjects of this article have simply not gained significant coverage to warrant a stand alone article. Of the 10 references in the article, The Nation reference is the only reliable source. The remaining sources do not discuss the subject whatsoever. A google search of the subjects do not show notability. Versace1608 (Talk) 03:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary source coverage. Agtx (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 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 00:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:RS -- three strikes and you're out. Quis separabit? 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luay Eljamal[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable self-published author. Fails WP:BASIC - Mr X 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any credible sources on this subject. First Google search results yield primary sources from social media websites. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 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, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 10 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 00:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Luay.eljamal where the given references are either unreliable self-published sites or passing mention in local coverage of student productions. Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) provide nothing to indicate that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or any other biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 05:40, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Romal[edit]

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

Singer who I can't find much notability for. Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. Only sources approaching subsatntial coverage are in the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet and are unsuitable per BLP (strangely they also say he is Iranian/Danish unlike the article which says Indian/Afghan). SmartSE (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 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 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant results found after a fairly exhaustive search engine hunt. PureRED (talk) 18:58, 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) 09:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1775 Zimmerwald[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I suggest deletion or preferably redirect to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kheider, you can disagree with my nomination, but you cannot edit it to make it say something different. I was really shocked to see that anyone would do that, and have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: NASTRO does not allow deletion of bot created main-belt asteroid stubs. It is either Keep or Re-direct. Your nomination should not suggest deleting the article. -- Kheider (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - DWMP/NASTRO say nothing of the sort, and you should not be editing other editors comments, especially when you are involved. ― Padenton|✉ 20:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My nomination should express my personal opinion. Your response should reflect your opinion. But you cannot re-write my nomination into something very different because you think I should have written something different. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have read NASTRO correct? Especially the part about re-directing and not deleting asteroid articles? -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I have expressed in in my nomination what NASTRO suggests and what I suggest. You cannot edit another person's comments in an AfD nomination to be what you think they should have said. Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Boleyn, please read WP:DWMP. Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean that stuff you just added here? ― Padenton|✉ 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. One lightcurve study [54], one report of a failed attempt to study it [55], and inclusion in an unselective survey of 820 asteroids [56]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 120 h rotation period is sufficient for me. -- Kheider (talk) 12:07, 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 00:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails GNG, NASTRO says (when not being modified to support Kheider's case) that these sort of things should be redirected to the main lists when no evidence of actual notability exists. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kumoh National Institute of Technology[edit]

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

Unsalvageably promotional content. I can't find reliable sources for verification either. It also seems to contain original research. TL22 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a degree-awarding university. Of course we should have an article about it. Feel free to remove promotional material. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 10 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 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NSCHOOL, is a four-year school, 7,000+ students —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete absolutely everything except for a single sentence stating "this is a school in Korea". No attempt whatsoever is made to make this Wikipedia article compliant with community policy. Meets the inclusion criteria for schools but no information here can be kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a degree-awarding tertiary institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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