Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 May	3 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 Speedy delete. Deleted under U1 ("2015-06-10T04:45:00 Iridescent talk contribs deleted page Study Overseas Global (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)"). This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it has still been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Study Overseas Global[edit]

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

strictly promotional one. no use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akashkoshy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 01 May 2015

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melila Purcell[edit]

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

Never played a game in the NFL, college career isn't enough to pass GNG. The news sources in the link above are only routine coverage for an athlete, nothing to establish notability. Wizardman 23:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notability misses the mark for an encyclapedia, but I started an article on the athelete at the American Football Wiki at Wikia ( has over 11,000 pages it's a great home for this content ). Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that was tricky, I did a quick review and didn't find much in current news. But then I saw that we did this two years ago. Apparently I saw something then that I didn't find so quickly now. I'm willing to trust myself from a few years ago. Once notable, always notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except notability interpretations and guidelines do change, so surviving one deletion attempt does not mean automatic notability at all future discussions. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to be a borderline case. Purcell was a first-team All-WAC player (see here). He has also received some significant coverage in Hawaiian media: e.g., this, this and this. Cbl62 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability standards for football players and college athletes. Being all conference is not enough to show notability. I don't think some local coverage of the U. of Hawaii football team is enough to meet GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in NFL and fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage and all news article are routine.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 9 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) 08:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Carnahan[edit]

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

Never actually played a game in the NFL, and college career doesn't seem to vault him over GNG. Wizardman 23:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for football player or college athletes. The only coverage is routine sports reporting. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not actually played in NFL and fails WP:GNG lacks significant coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Funds for Cancer Research[edit]

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

failes WP:NOTABILITY - created and maintained by SPA Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO, no actual references, just a list of people who work there. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons already listed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:PROMO—completely unreferenced non-notable organization. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Funds for Cancer Research Awards[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTABILITY. searched for secondary sources that were not promo by somebody; nothing good. maintained by SPA Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and is a promotional awards ceremony for a questionably notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. As Hope Funds for Cancer Research is non-notable, their awards are non-notable as well. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:42, 9 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 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incheon Nonhyeon High School[edit]

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

~~This is written about a normal school which has not achieved any conceivable notability as far as I can establish, short of winning a few prizes in dance and CPR.~~

The article is padded out with excessive quantities of unnecessary bumf and information which, quite frankly, only a statistician would be interested in. Once you remove the padding, there is practically nothing to base an article on. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 22:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) WITHDRAWN following repair by Ansh666 CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 14:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an academic secondary school for students in grades 10-12. Per the precendent described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, we routinely keep articles about secondary schools unless a hoax is involved. I do not know what "bumf" means, but the nominator is free to edit the article with the goal of improving it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Firstly, bumf means junk, as in "Bumf mail"; it's British slang. Secondly, I wouldn't have the inclination to rebuild the article; I cannot put flesh on the skeleton of something which is already dead. Please feel free to take the challenge on. Regardless of the fact it's a high school which is "routinely kept", I call IAR. This article in its present state is irretrievable and requires a full rewrite or deletion, the latter being preferable. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article currently has one third party reference which briefly mentions the school, and books that do not sound like they go into depth on the school. I would not consider this to be significant coverage. As Charlie said, when you take away the padding, there is nothing of note. The article is already tagged as excessively detailed. If that were to be fixed, it'd be half of a stub. I am in strong favor of deletion. -- Mysterious Gopher (talk), 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ansh666 23:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I stubified it myself. Previous version here. ansh 666 23:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. We routinely keep this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- WITHDRAWN: Thank you to Ansh666 for doing what I frankly considered to be bloody near impossible. If this is able to be fleshed out any further, I wish you all good luck. Passing administrators, please consider this as a rapid close, no further action. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti|diskussjoni 14:27, 4 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 00:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cyrene Burch Breckinridge[edit]

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

Notability can't be inherited as the wife of a US vice president. A redirect to her husband seems to be the logical choice.

Keep for now. We currently have biographies of all the wives of U.S. vice-presidents, which are listed at Second Lady of the United States. I suppose consensus can change, but I favor keeping this status quo, at least until a thorough discussion takes place about the whole group of articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's what this is, a test case to see if most of the rest of the second ladies should go or not. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- I would have to agree with Cullen on this. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unremarkable woman who does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also side with Cullen328 on this matter. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep add me to the list supporting Cullen328's rationale, but definitely improve references. Elgatodegato (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chauntry Cup[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable sporting event. Having done a search, there's almost no independent sources about it, because it's a tournament for teams that aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, see WP:CRIN. The tournament claims to be the oldest Twenty20 tournament in the world, although there is no reliable sources that support this, and most cricket sources don't count it since it isn't a professional tournament. The only reason this article exists is because the user wants to use a Wikipedia article to get a record for the Guiness Book of Records, see here. Should be deleted, as fails WP:NCRIC, WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, the only reference to being the oldest T20 tournament is here, which only says that it might be. It started in 1936, but there's no reliable source saying that it's definitely the oldest. Also, it's not a professional sports competition, and doesn't have first-class or List A teams in it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki rules the page needs to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and I maintain it is interesting enough for Sky Sports News to add to their show and so they believe the whole Worlds viewing public will be interested in it's history. It is also interesting to the tens of thousand who have watched live at Lichfield Cricket Ground, participated in over a full 80 years, read about it in the papers, or online, or heard of The Chauntry Cup all around the area's cricket fraternity and beyond. Very few Cricket fans around the World will know of it but I'm going to change that. I personally contacted every major cricketing nation, most of the minor nations, every major English County, most of the Minor counties, all major TV companies, every major newspaper and a few radio stations. I had replies from many but am going to approach them all again, as I am learning more about the Chauntry Cup's illustrious history. I have only just begun. It is certainly unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded by Sky News. Trans World Sport have expressed an interest in recording a piece for their Channel Four program. This competition will be even more famous over the next 2 months as I intend to publicise the fact that Wiki are trying to bury it.Dartman1001 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have indef-blocked Dartman: their edits were problematic enough, and the last sentence of the above paragraph is plenty of reason. If they got something to say they can say it on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor local tournament which does not meet WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Firstly, it is THE OLDEST RUNNING T20 competition in the World. Secondly, it is interesting and worthy of inclusion on wiki. You are obliviously not interested in cricket or you wouldn't be anti this article. It is incredible that The Chauntry Cup drew up 20 20 rules almost 70 years before the world picked it up. That is another reason the page should remain. It is not offensive, doesn't advertise but is hugely interesting to cricket fans.
There are far less notable pages on wiki and this subject will be looked at, as long as the game of cricket continues to be playedJoanneB123 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC) -- — JoanneB123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"it is THE OLDEST RUNNING T20 competition in the World" - no reliable sources have been produced to confirm that, all I can find is one solitary piece on Cricket World saying vaguely that it might be -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article probably needs work, but it looks like there is coverage out there. A Google search turned up an article at Cricket World: [1] —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @C.Fred: The mentioned article just says the cup is 80 years old, there is not a definitive source saying it is the oldest T20 tournament- it suggests it might be, but doesn't say 100% it is. Also, it's a local cricket tournament- I'm a massive cricket fan, and hadn't heard of this obscure tournament until this article was created. Apart from that article, all coverage is obscure local papers. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: You went looking for sources WP:BEFORE the AfD nomination? —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Yes I did, I found this one and no other references. Google searching for it just listed pages of minor league cricket teams, and all the article sources are just obscure local papers (mainly the Lichfield Mercury). As a cricket fan, I know that basically every notable (and some obscure) cricket events have coverage on either ESPN Cricinfo or Cricbuzz- the fact neither of them have any coverage, nor any British national newspapers was what made me put this up for AfD. As a cricket fan, part of me wanted this cricket to stay, but the more I looked for evidence to help it stay, the more convinced I became that there isn't any. As the article creator User:LichfieldCC said, their record isn't recognised by Guinness Book of Records, since it isn't a professional sports competition, and that's also why it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Joseph2302's clarification of the due diligence he did before the nomination, I'm switching my !vote. Is it interesting that it's an 80-year-old 20/20 tournament? Yes. Has it been covered enough to be a notable tournament? No. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ -But Wiki rules state it must be interesting and it is. It says nothing about The Guinness Book of Records deciding what goes on Wiki. It will be featured on Sky Sports News at the start of the "professional" T20 blast next week. It will also be on their website if it isn't alreadyDartman1001 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it makes the Sky Sports website, I'm willing to look at that and reconsider if there's in-depth coverage that would meet WP:GNG. But until/unless that happens, the coverage isn't out there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not currently on Sky Sports, I checked that carefully after it wasn't on Cricinfo or Cricbuzz. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so people know, it still hasn't made Sky Sports News website. I haven't seen the documentary that's meant to be on Sky Sports News today, but it's not necessarily going to be notable- Sky Sports cricket make lots of short programmes about club cricket teams and matches, and none of them seem very notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ It's a deal. If it's not on Sky Sports News next week, you can delete it. I won't bother adding any more until after that. I feel very sorry for you. You want to delete the very start of 20 over cricket in the world because you feel like it. That just makes no sense for Wiki. You are making Wiki a sterile environment where people won't bother to bring interesting subjects, hitherto unnoticed to the world.Dartman1001 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have perfectly encapsulated there why the article should be deleted. As per WP:N, Wikipedia is for things which have already received in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. If a subject is "hitherto unnoticed to the world" then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPChrisTheDudeWiki rules state it must be interesting. It is. Not every article on wiki can even say that. You say "hitherto unnoticed to the world". Most of the stuff on wiki is the same. There are tens of thousands of pages less notable on here. It has received in depth coverage and that will become more in depth as I research it for you. By the time I've finished, every cricket fan will have heard of it. There are only 3 of you who want to delete it because you all stick together. I wouldn't expect any less. In fact, I fully expect, because all three of your arguments fail, that you will call on your mates to blitz this area. One of you even admitted it WAS INTERESTING and still put it for deletion. I doubt there are many articles that meet ever wiki criteria for inclusion. The only thing I can say for certain is that it IS INTERESTING AND IS UNUSUAL ENOUGH TO DESERVE ATTENTION AND TO BE RECORDED. None of you have managed to argue against these Wiki rules for inclusion so it MUST BE KEPT. Dartman1001 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just so you know, you're only allowed to vote once, which is why all your other Keeps have been struck out. Also, the onus is on you to show that it is notable for Wikipedia- the fact that so many experienced Wikipedians think it isn't notable should indicate it really isn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will keep finding reasons for it to stay but here's a wiki page I randomly pulled out. Martin Dohlsten. Why is his page worthy of a Wiki page, if the Chauntry Cup isn't?Dartman1001 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is definitely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and therefore isn't a good argument, but I'll answer anyway. Some things on Wikipedia have inherent notability, and so are automatically accepted- so all footballers who have played in a fully professional league, as are all cricketers who've played in a first-class or List A match ever. That person is notable because they played professional football, and so lots of reliable sources will exist about them. As discussed previously, the Chauntry Cup does not- if it were notable, then I'd expect sources on at least some of the places I mentioned above. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even looked anywhere really. I have seen the Lichfield Mercury's archive for about 4 years during the war. Many brave Australian and New Zealand airmen, who also played first class cricket, participated in the Cup during the war years. It would be a wicked betrayal of their bravery, to simply delete the leisure pursuit that helped them, cope with the fear and danger of what they had to endure through the war, to keep our world free, for wiki to even exist. I searched on google but only the top few pages, for references to the Chauntry Cup. I'm going to start looking further. I wrote to Robin Marlar recently, who wrote the illustrated history of cricket but he hasn't replied yet. While he was MCC President, he was asking for anyone with information about the origins of T20. I would expect him to fully support my claim as he played in The Junior Chauntry Cup as a lad, in the 1940's.Dartman1001 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC) As it states on other stuff exists, arguments can be valid or invalid. In this case it is valid. If Martin Dohlsten's pages exits, so should mine.[reply]

KEEPThere is no reason to delete The Chauntry Cup. There are similar cricket comptetions on Wiki like Bolton Cricket LeagueJoanneB123 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)— JoanneB123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Bolton Cricket isn't notable enough either, WP:CRIC says that in England, the notable leagues are professional ones, and those designated as ECB Premier Leagues. A competition between obscure club cricket teams, not affiliated with the ECB, does not meet this criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Amazing to find this article on the Chauntry Cup, which is well-known and respected in my part of the Midlands and indeed I turned out for my local village back in the 60's (with very limited success!) As I understand it, you want to remove this article because some of you have never heard of it? It doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and may in fact help to establish the claim of being the worlds oldest T20 competition. I find the argument that it is not a professional competition strange - there is (or certainly used to be) a village cricket competition each year that had a final at Lords, and when the Olympic Games were revived in Much Wenlock in the 1850's that amateur competition is credited in Wikipedia. The fact that Sky Sports have shown an interest already is encouraging, so why would you feel it necessary to squash the article? Normandoe — Normandoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Interesting to see someone edit for the first time in 9 years to promote this. It's not a vote people. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....and your point is? As I said, I played in the Cup, so have an interest and tried to make relevant points rather than dig at anyone else? normandoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normandoe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 May 2015‎ (UTC)— Normandoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Joanne123 has been indeffed as a sockpuppet of Dartman, so I've struck their comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

School Cloud System[edit]

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

Article about non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Article was created by an SPA with a name similar to one of the developers, so likely promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement for unnotable software. Deleted in Persian wiki. -- Nojan (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable software lacks third party sources and is promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdisalam Issa-Salwe[edit]

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

This person doesn't appear to meet the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I became aware of him as a result of this issue that I raised on the reliable sources noticeboard. He is a computer scientist and has also published on Somali politics and history. It is possible that he might meet criteria 1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") or 7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity") but the article doesn't demonstrate this and I haven't been able to find sources that establish it. The publishers of his books are not well established (LAP Lambert Academic Publishing is a vanity press). It also appears that the article might have been written in part by the subject ("Publications Related to my Dissertation"), perhaps as Binsalwe. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTRESUME. The article says where he's been, his publications, his research interests. There's not even an explanation as to his notability. The only reference doesn't appear to mention him. [2] Citation counts are pretty low, so no substantial impact on either of his fields. Not seeing any news coverage so it doesn't seem he's had a significant impact outside of academia. ― Padenton|✉ 21:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't seem to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts inadequate for WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of passing any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Fails WP:PROF and also per WP:NOTRESUME.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Data driven marketing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Buzzword bingo. Pax 05:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Article also reads like a case of WP:PROMO as well.

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired By Muhammad[edit]

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

This article is about an organisation that, so far as I can tell, was briefly in the news in 2010 for an advertising campaign. There appears to have been no significant publicity since; that advertising campaign was all the organisation seems to have done. It was probably never notable and is not now. Relentlessly (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A routine advertising campaign. Pax 05:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A routine advertising campaign in 2010 it is not notable and has no lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 9 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Orpe[edit]

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

Doesn't qualify as a poker player nor, I'm guessing, as a TV presenter/host. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- per significant coverages in multiple independent relible sources, subject of the article meet WP:BASIC. The subject of the article is a Professional poker player and TV presenter. She is listed in the "Top 5 female poker host" per this source. I lso found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 and 7 to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is not a professional player, and being named one of the top five female poker hosts is not a big deal (are there even more than five all together?). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own personal opinion and not a policy based. reliable sources claimed she is a Professional poker player and TV presenter, a description by multiple reliable sources. Meanwhile WP:RS is all that is important to Wikipedia and that's where Wikipedia draws its conclusion and not from a non-policy based opinion. For example if you actually know that Barrack Obama is the president of the US and no single reliable source mention that, certainly you cannot include that claim in the encyclopedia which undermine your own fact that he's actually a US president. Aside all this, per significant coverages in multiple RS, she actually meet WP:GNG. To be blunt with you, your deletion rational that She doesn't qualify as a poker player nor, I'm guessing, as a TV presenter/host seemed to be ridiculous to me. Your rational clearly shows that you ignored this guideline before your nomination, which is not a good idea to me. By observing that guideline, you will definitely not have any reason to "guess" whether she is a TV presenter/host or not per your rational. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A professional poker player is generally defined as someone who makes a living at it. The Hendon mob database shows her tournament winnings as a bit more than $10K. In an interview, she herself admits "I much preferred the guaranteed income [working at Sky Poker] rather than the risk of playing for a living". That's irrelevant anyway. Being a professional poker player no more qualifies for notability than being a professional accountant. WP:POKER#Biography article notability criteria, while only an essay, suggests at least a major tournament win or a $1 million cash. As for GNG, most of the references are either not about her specifically or just announce she has taken a new position. The onlinepoker.net article may or may not be acceptable; it plays up her "Stunning Poker Babe"ness, so it's more a case of WP:HOTTIE (where did that go?). That leaves a Poker News interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When I said "I'm guessing", I was referring to the notability of being a host/presenter, not whether she was one. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies the "prolific" criterion of WP:ENT by being host of multiple television series. Pax 05:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikicology. Subject clearly meets WP:BASIC. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Top of the Pops episodes aired on UK Gold[edit]

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

I believe this article fails WP:NOTDIR. This article is listcruft and unnotable. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate; what particular reruns of a particular show later aired on another channel is not relevant nor useful to understanding that show or the channel. We'd at most document simply that any episodes of Top of the Pops ever aired on Gold, which has already been done in a list of its programs past and present. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pointless listcruft. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They air reruns (though obviously with certain exceptions, a list not updated since 2012), and that's all about 99.99999% of UK Gold viewers care about; otherwise this is unnotable listcruft among a select group. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His PhD is in Hypocrisy…And Other Poems about My Crappy Ex-Boyfriend[edit]

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

This article does not cite reliable references. One reference links to a Twitter post which generally is not acceptable as a reliable reference. If this article is fixed with reliable references, than I can withdraw nomination. However, as of now the article's references do not establish this poem as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see any indication that this meets the standard of WP:Notability (books). Worldcat shows only three library holdings. So far as I can make out from the publisher's website, this is their only book. Article author appears to be the author of the book. Online searches suggest an energetic marketing campaign, e.g. on Tumblr the author appeals to anyone who finds the copies of the book she is leaving around Wellesley College to "leave a review everywhere you can (Amazon, Goodreads, Barnes & Noble, iTunes, Smashwords, Librarything, Shelfari etc)... Help me make this book go as big as it can." Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to help market your book. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can I write an article about a self-published book by myself where I rant about my ex too? Seeing no reliable sources here, no demonstration that this is a legitimate book of note. Does not seem to pass any criteria of WP:NBOOK, and the article's creator looks like they might be the author of the book. ― Padenton|✉ 22:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the title (it has a Tucker Max-esque spin to it) and the marketing gimmick is interesting, but neither of those two things would give the book notability. I tried to see if the author would have notability enough to warrant an article, but I don't see where she would pass Wikipedia's admittedly very strict notability guidelines. Other than the one local newspaper article (which cannot be verified easily) there just isn't any coverage out there. I wish the author well, but right now this is just too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article falls way below the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G5: creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Pax 06:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nikah (TV series)[edit]

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

Contested prod, no info for this show (and I swear this was deleted already) Wgolf (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No claim to notability (even possible hoax). Should have been deleted already. AusLondonder (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per AusLondonder. No references to establish notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, this is clearly not a "hoax." It's a real show. Also, it airs on an international TV network, Hum TV. Per WP:TVSHOW, "Generally, an individual...TV show is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market." Per our own article on Hum TV, it's available in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and in the U.S. on Dish Network. Now, this article is completely bad, it's less than a WP:STUB, but the subject of the article appears to pass our own subject-specific notability guideline. I'll add a quick lede to at least incorporate a claim to notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability exists. Television drama serial running on Hum TV. Official site

Comment; Wgolf tagged this for speedy deletion under G5, because it's a page created by Vamsiraj in violation of his or her block. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2015 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Shaw[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and guidelines for WP:BIO articles per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This nom is spot on, the notability is inherited and this subject is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (Or perhaps add to List of nannies who worked for second sons of Joseph Kennedy, the Duke of Cambridge (Massachusetts).) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 17:29, 6 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. Well, this is clearly headed for KEEP--so I'm closing this as a case of SNOW. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casey J[edit]

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

As the creator of this article notes, this singer "meets WP:NSINGER" due to placing an "album on [a] national chart." NSINGER only says that a subject may be notable for the criteria listed there. All biography articles are expected to meet the WP:BASIC notability criteria of "receiv[ing] significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

I managed to find a few sources about this singer: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Sources 2 and 4 are not intellectually independent of each other as BASIC defines it. There's not too terribly much encyclopedic content to extract out of the small handful of other sources.

Our notability guidelines for people tell us that "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice' or 'note' – that is, 'remarkable' or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC) *Delete - I don't really listen to the artist or even have any knowledge of her. All I can say is that I may have misunderstood the guideline. I have no problem with this being deleted right now without any further discussion. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 18:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep - OMG, seems very notable per below coments. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:PERNOM. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to "violate" concepts introduced in an essay article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Quick news Search on Casey J revealed this [3] coverage on Casey J from Atlanta Daily World, Atlanta's oldest black newspaper, and also this [4] from Chicago Defender. These two, along with the New York Times piece on her [5] are sufficient for GNG. She's apparently #1 on the Billboard Gospel chart [6].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources have already been addressed in the OP. The Atlanta Daily World source is not intellectually independent of the Billboard charts. And being #1 on a Billboard chart is only a possible indication of notability, not a guarantee. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel music seems under-represented on WP, and this woman appears a notable gospel singer. She has been covered in the New York Times and others as well as being #1 on the Billboard Gospel chart. Chase, I notice you were the OP who nominated this for deletion, only hours after article creation. I can't help but wonder why you did so so quickly. It seems tagging it for notability would have been more reasonable intermediary step, and more beneficial to WP, in that it would give others chance to expand the article and add sources.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her coverage in the Times constitutes one paragraph... but I nominated the article because it looked like it was created solely because of her charting on Billboard with no consideration for the more basic (and meaningful) notability guidelines. I Googled and only found brief, fairly trivial mentions in a small handful of sources; not feeling the article could be expanded substantially and meaningfully, I nominated it for deletion. And it's a shame that gospel music is underrepresented on this website, but we are an encyclopedia, not the place to make a statement. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct here, Chasewc91. We don't !vote "Keep" to make a point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frankly I find it hard to accept that having a #1 album doesn't suffice. But here are some non-trivial sources: CBN, television network; Hallels; Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Atlanta Christian Web; The Jace Magazine; Yolanda Adams, radio. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of artists who have reached #1 on record charts, including the Billboard charts, that do not have articles – including those who have had their articles deleted – because charting is only an indication of possible notability, not an automatic criterion for inclusion. Note the use of the word "may" in WP:MUSICBIO. Note that Jace Magazine is a blog and the majority of sources that have been presented are based in Atlanta, the subject's hometown and where she recorded her album. Not that we can't use these sources because they're local, but you have to consider that these publications have a vested interest in her, and she is likely heavily working the city's promotional venues for gospel music ("self-promotion [is] not the [route] to having an encyclopaedia article"). And, again, most are not intellectually independent of one another – some include more details, but most are general rehashings of the same facts: she has a single rising up the gospel charts, an album out that she worked on in Atlanta, etc. etc. Non-intellectually independent sources cannot be combined to determine notability. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct on all points, Chasewc91. WP:SYNTH is against guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallels is national, and based in Tennessee. CBN is national and based in Virginia. The Jace Magazine is based in Texas. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a major newspaper. It's a bit of a stretch to say that these all have a vested interest in her. --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. GNG has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have multiple examples of coverage independent from the subject, clearly passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. The nom holds the article to a higher standard than the GNG requires, not to mention, the charting, which is generally a pretty good indicator that the sources are out there, even if we haven't found them yet. Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as subject has been shown to pass GNG per the sources provided above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:51, 6 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 no consensus. I know this is probably in violation of all sorts of rules, but WP:IAR. Look, this obviously isn't going anywhere and there is no point to dragging out the discussion for a week. Therefore, I am closing this so we can move on quicker. If TortoiseWrath wants to renominate the articles on an individual basis, that would be fine. (non-admin closure) Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Morse[edit]

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

Player has not been signed by any NFL team. Notability was not clearly established in college, and WP:NGRIDIRON is not applicable as the player has not yet (and certainly may never) appear in an NFL game. — TORTOISE WRATH 17:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Nominating additional articles for same reasons:[reply]

— TORTOISE WRATH 18:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you even bother to check if he passes WP:GNG? He would probably pass even if he wasn't drafted.--Yankees10 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may certainly be the case for Morse (hence him being a second-round pick), but asserting the same for someone like Jon Feliciano is highly questionable. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undrafted players may have tons of coverage. Round drafted means nothing with notability.--Yankees10 18:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also a lot of these players get coverage after they were drafted. Like this with Feliciano.--Yankees10 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my talk page: "There's a reason we have further notability guidelines, such as WP:NGRIDIRON, for various topics. They exist to elaborate on WP:GNG and provide clearer criteria for notability. There has to come a point where football players are not notable, and while I can confirm that the vast majority of these players will become notable in the future, there is no way to tell which ones at this point. We have no articles for Tavon Rooks (drafted 202nd overall, 2014), James Taylor (drafted 33rd overall, 1978), or the majority of other football players who have not in fact played in the NFL. Why do you believe this is so?"

Also worth noting that User:Yankees10 is the creator of these articles. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting all of these wouldn't really accomplish much. Only two players from the 2014 NFL Draft don't have articles. Most of these people play in at least one game their first season. Also, the 1978 NFL draftees didn't get as much widely available coverage as now and the draft had 80 more picks. Other users might just start making articles about these draftees if Yankees10 doesn't. These articles probably wouldn't be nominated right now if they weren't short. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, if someone had a decent article before the draft that was not deleted than their notability would have been established in college. Those two people left from the 2014 draft are those whose notability did not end up being established in college or in any professional league. Calling people notable simply because they are drafted in the NFL, which seems to be what has happened here, seems to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTWHOSWHO (the draft is indeed a notable event, but the coverage of these individuals in the article 2015 NFL draft should often be all that is necessary, particularly before Week 1), particularly when the current wording of WP:NGRIDIRON (which I have noticed does change fairly frequently, and may have been different at the times of previous drafts, causing more articles to be created) is in place. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this AFD fails there is something seriously wrong with WP:NGRIDIRON which will require discussion. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is disruptive to nominate them all at once. As others have noted, almost all players drafted last year now have articles. Deleting them at this point would just make someone do the work again. Calidum T|C 20:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calidum's reasoning. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Calidum. If these players don't meet WP:NGRIDIRON six months from now, we can then reevaluate their individual notability claims under WP:GNG at that time. Putting them all together in a giant list like this is totally pointless. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They shouldn't be nominated all at once, but we don't create articles on people who will "probably" be notable in the future. That's not, not has it ever been, how this works. Granted, Wikipedia's coverage on American football as it is is horribly done; articles are swiftly created when drafted, abandoned, and atrophied much more so than any other subject. Wizardman 23:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh look another user that decided to do zero research on whether these guys pass GNG or not and voted delete based on their own agenda. Guess what, they all do. Your reasoning is terrible.--Yankees10 23:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure the "abandoned" thing is correct but if so it is because there are way more gridiron football players than other sport (50+ player teams). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Close with no result nominating this whole batch of articles in one AfD is not especially helpful. These would be best evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, I personally think that anyone who gets drafted by an NFL team is probably notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (some) per WP:NCOLLATH #1, keep: Rob Havenstein (all-america), Shaquille Mason (all-america), Chaz Green (Freshman All american), No comment on others. ― Padenton|✉ 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all for the time being. The real-world, practical custom has been to allow pages for drafted NFL rookies, because the coverage exists: football fans are insatiable in their desire for this stuff. Deletion may come later, if drafted rookie doesn't make a team, but it's just not helpful to fight over these pages during the period between the draft and the beginning of the season. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do agree that these pass GNG, but they are being created too quickly. If you're going to make a page, make the effort to put an infobox, a sentence or two about recruiting, college, and the combine. Maybe add measureables and combine stats. I disagree on making the page to add one line (see Tyeler Davison, Shaquille Riddick, others, etc.). I will work on adding infoboxes and stuff later, but don't make the page just with one line expecting others to add stuff later. There's four months until the season starts. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Theres no issue with the way I do it (or at least there shouldn't be). I've been doing it this way for years now, and I always add categories, infoboxes, more sources, etc within a week or so after the draft.--Yankees10 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand what the rush is to create all the pages so quickly. Why not take the time and effort to add all the information at once? Bland one line pages look bad. Mpejkrm (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because theres better something instead of a redlink. Like I said they don't stay like that for long.--Yankees10 05:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care if they're kept or not (I don't see any great damage in keeping them), but I think we need a new guideline against having multiple AfD's in one -- I'm sick of being asked to spend my precious time in rummaging through a big fat list of candidates especially when some are more likely notable than others (like mixed nuts, heh), or when there's only one I care about due to a project I belong to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:25, 3 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) 08:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Foothills FC[edit]

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

Non-notable association football team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same playing level as other Canadian PDL clubs Thunder Bay Chill, |Forest City London, KW United FC, WSA Winnipeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not in a fully professional league -- the majority of the players don't even get paid. Tavix | Talk 20:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the standard for keeping articles for teams are not whether they are fully professional or not. (in the UK for example, the 5th tier isn't fully professional, but team articles are almost universal down to the 10th tier, and sporadic after that for particularly notable teams). Teams that play in the Premier Development League have always been considered notable previously. Nfitz (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in this rationale. England has a completely different system than Canada/USA and a direct comparison isn't fair. If this team is notable, it should be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:ORGDEPTH. Tavix | Talk 03:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it wouldn't meet WP:GNG given the references in the article. When EVERY other team of the same criteria has an article, than there's nothing wrong with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because teams in this league get significant media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added the following references to the points made in the article:
- MacKinnon, Jeff (December 4, 2014). "Foothills join upper level soccer league; USL development loop welcomes Calgary squad beginning in 2015". Calgary Herald. p. B14.
- "Foothills FC joins Under-23 soccer league". Calgary Sun. December 3, 2014. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
- Weismiller, Bryan (March 17, 2014). "Canadian Soccer Association OKs pro-calibre Calgary team". Metro Calgary. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (June 9, 2014). "Foothills edge Whitecaps in U23 match". Calgary Herald. p. C2.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (April 18, 2014). "New U23 franchise to kick off exhibition season". Calgary Herald. p. D2.
- MacKinnon, Jeff (April 26, 2015). "Foothills FC cites fitness concerns in exhibition loss to Edmonton". Calgary Herald. Retrieved May 4, 2015. —maclean (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why neither User:Sean clarke7 nor User:Maclean25 have expressed an opinion on whether or not this page should be kept, as they both seem to have opinions. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content provided by User:Maclean25 contains multiple secondary sources providing coverage in local media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean clarke7 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - playing in the PDL is sufficient. Giant Snowman 18:07, 6 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. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Davies (photographer)[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this was deleted before-a non notable person that also comes across as a advertisement in a way. Wgolf (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references. No apparent WP:CREATIVE notability. Perhaps WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article WP:NRV. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Jbh ^Talk 16:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to be promotional, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced BLPs are contrary to policy. An article that says Ian Davies is represented by the Fouzia Madani Agency in italics for emphasis is promotional. If anyone can furnish the independent coverage needed to establish notability, I will reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP to establish subject as notable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and seems to be an ad. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Lousy article, but he does have some long-standing notability back into the late 1980s, as the "house photographer" of the Madchester scene. I can't judge if this passes the bar for WP:N, but this is more than simply non-notable spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've deleted material that was pasted in from www.fouziamadani.com/artist/ian_davies/artist_profile/ (for which I didn't even have to google; Reddogsix alerted us to it within User talk:Lxndxn). I've also done some other minor work on the (non-) article. (Again without actually bothering to do any googling. Somebody more interested in celebs, fashion, etc than I am will have to do this.) If Davies was the "house photographer" of a "scene", then I expect that somebody (perhaps SPA Lxndxn?) will be able to add disinterested, credible sources for this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment. As noted immediately above, I removed stuff copied from elsewhere and pasted in (because I had no clear reason to think that its presence didn't violate copyright). I also made other, minor changes that I think were improvements. (I'm not convinced that the article should survive, but also not convinced that it shouldn't: I thought I'd nudge the article in a salvagable direction.) Rather surprisingly (since it's already up for AfD), Comatmebro then prodded the article. Then Wgolf undid all my work (as well as Comatmebro's), with the edit summary "restoring afd". (The AfD template hadn't been removed, and Wgolf neither reinstated nor duplicated it.) So Wgolf has reintroduced material that must be presumed to violate copyright, re-redlinked the names of the biographee's (not-obviously-encyclopedic) kids, readded blather such as "leading cutting edge", etc. I find this mystifying. If the article is bad, it needn't be as bad as it now is: I slightly improved it; now it is degraded. -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing your work-the AFD was removed so I was trying to revert and went to far. Wgolf (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wgolf. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 9 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 procedural close. Nomination withdrawn and article merged. No outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University College London Union Yetis[edit]

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

University sports clubs are only rarely notable. This has been around for some time according to the notability tag (August 2014) although this version seems to have been created today. Possible re-creation of a deleted article. This version has no refs to support any claim to notability. Fails WP:CLUB Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge with another UCL/UCLU page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojk9 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as suggested by author. AfD now Withdrawn Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:03, 3 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 18:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dyanna[edit]

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

Promo article for non-notable spa by an indef-blocked editor. Sources 2-6 are either self-published or published via PR-agencies and press releases. Source 1 seems to be OK, but is only a very short review - doesn't establish any significant notability. Google hits show massive PR activity, but no apparent independent coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No advertisements.--Rpclod (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -As per WP:PROMO _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete. But not because the editor was blocked: That is irrelevant. No reliable sources. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable business. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (though blocked editor does not factor in here). The topic does not meet WP:GNG--unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Shanata (talk) 05:14, 9 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 07:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

European Prison Education Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Created by a single edit user. I could find no indepth coverage, only that they once held a conference in Malta. LibStar (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only live references are subject's own site.--Rpclod (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources to establish notability. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some passing mentions, in future if there are some more of them, then it may qualify for a redirect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation of the article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Blaney. No prejudice against recreation in October if she wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel A. Blaney[edit]

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

biography does not meet WP:NPOL notability standards. FUNgus guy (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page reads like a political brochure. She does not yet meet WP:NPOL criteria, as she is a political candidate. Her other work such as former Exec. Director of an NGO is impressive, but does not meet notability standards. FUNgus guy (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an essay. Most likely Self promotion. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not going to say self-promotion, as we don't know that she is personally behind this, but it is clear that somebody with a conflict of interests is as it is clearly intended to be promotional. Could it legitimately be cut down to a more neutral stub? Not based on the Google News hits. I don't see notability to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a case of WP:COI to me. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, an as yet unelected candidate in a future election does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate. If you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before she became a candidate, then she must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. I would note, as well, that another article about the same person was deleted in April at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Blaney — which means that the middle initial being present in the title this time is an apparent attempt to sidestep that discussion, and that this qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article. Accordingly, I am speedy deleting it right now. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 9 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) 08:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerad Noel[edit]

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

The article is of a non-notable individual and it contains no sources or references (apart from a link to a Facebook page). None of the films or awards included in the article are notable - and there is no indication as to whether those films or awards exist. The article is the work of a sole editor, who has repeatedly removed improvement tags from the article without attempting to address the identified issues. Dan arndt (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lankan-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Facebook and YouTube are generally not reliable sources. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:37, 2 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) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 Years Of Atomic Kitten - Tour[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable tour. Lacks reliable coverage in reliable sources, while the references given in the article are either unreliable or non-independent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete, belongs into Atomic Kitten when there is something to report. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prev comment in the last AFD - Essentially still a CRYSTALBALL, Suggest recreating once something more concrete comes up - The sources so far aren't brilliant at all. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTALBALL. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aitmad TV[edit]

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

No evidence that the future TV station meets WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable reference. The article could be created later. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Multiple searches found nothing to suggest this TV station has received good third-party sources, I can't speak for Urdu sources though. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 11 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 04:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Heymann[edit]

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

Notability has not been established with reliable sources--instead we have a sort of press release-resume hybrid. I templated and prodded this as an IP, and am signing in to AFD. JNW (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tricky one this. There was also an artist by the name of Pierre Heymann (see [7]) who died in 1982 and who did some quite distinguished painting in the 1950s (e.g. [8]). I couldn't find any material on the presently-living Heymann. The French wikipedia article has some inline sources but they didn't establish WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really tricky--if there's no material on the subject of this article, it's ripe for deletion. Another artist of the same name, coincidental though it may be, isn't relevant to this discussion. JNW (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I will happily reconsider if good sources are found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:- Sadly no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:02, 4 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) 08:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Progress India[edit]

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

Local version of a pageants of which the international version is not even notable enough to write an article about. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCALFAME. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Pageants[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources. No apparent notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. All I find online are links to Facebook, Linkedin and its Wikipedia Article. Likely promotional. Jbh ^Talk 18:42, 9 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) 08:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr United Nations India[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and promo The Banner talk 12:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - own website and a press release are not reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 9 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) 08:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Program management professional (US)[edit]

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

The subject of the article is a qualification, but it is solely based on a program offered by the Project Management Institute and sourced entirely from its website and is therefore a promotional piece advertising the Project Management Institute and sourced entirely from its website.

The subject fails WP:GNG with no depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Flat Out talk to me 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 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, Sandstein 12:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject's own website and a page of a party with a financial interest are not independent, unbiased, reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 14:01, 2 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) 08:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Albu[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Only one top tier fight so definitely does not meet WP:NMMA and actually has only 2 professional bouts. Not nearly enough history to suggest anything lasting. Does not meet WP:GNG either. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 14:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but very promising that she was accepted into the UFC and won her first match with such a short professional career. I imagine she will meet WP:NMMA soon so re-creation at the time and WP:REFUND should be indiscriminately available. Mkdw ^talk 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't have put her up for AfD yet. It's true she doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but having won her first UFC fight she's very likely to get at least two more which would allow her to meet NMMA. At this time, her coverage falls under routine sports reporting, so if I had to vote it would be for delete or userfy. Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sat on this for awhile trying to decide whether or not I wanted/should bring this to AfD. You should be able to avoid AfD with two top tier fights if one is win on the assumption that the third is probably on its way - but signing with the UFC or having a single fight means that meeting the conditions is just too far in the future. Still what decided this was the almost total lack of professional fights (2) which does not demonstrate the staying power to make three fights certain. There is also the lack of coverage which is what really determines notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on observing the UFC's actions, they seem to always keep a fighter who wins one of their first 2 fights, and sometimes even if they lose both. That said, fighters do get injured or quit so it's certainly not guaranteed she'll get 3 top tier fights. That's why I wouldn't vote to keep this article at this time and have elected to sit this one out. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We can't crystal ball her career and it's not a guarantee, no matter how likely, that she will shortly meet the criteria. We have WP:REFUND available in this scenario. If exceptions are made now then it sets a precedent. Mkdw ^talk 02:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that setting a precedence is a consideration for me also.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:REFUND had to do with articles that were PRODed.Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is just routine sports reporting, which isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. No objections to recreating this as soon as she meets WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and Mdtemp Doublefrog (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Perry (mixed martial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet either WP:NMMA (or WP:MMANOT) or WP:GNG. Rings Australia is not Top Tier and even so the number of fights and performance is not impressive. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Peter Rehse (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of them meet WP:NMMA and all of the sources for the 3 fighters are merely links to their fight records. Those records are also unimpressive, showing that the 3 of them combined won a total of 3 matches. Papaursa (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 The previous comments say it all. None of them meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Not notable as MMA fighters and coverage consists of links to their records on various MMA websites. That's not significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 19:34, 4 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wine n' about[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Clearly an advertisement. An editor disagreed with CSD, and asked for XfD instead. Cahk (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contains legit source. --Phil Copperman (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legit source? The only ref was the website of the subject matter. --Cahk (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Beautifully written, evidently not a WP:HOAX. Strong keep. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's not a hoax, does not mean it's not an advertisement that should be deleted.--Cahk (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article provides no reliable sources and otherwise does not indicate WP:ORG notability.--Rpclod (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. I don't like spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam ... Come back when you've gotten some media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Clearly promotional too. GermanJoe (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I recommend Hash Tag 444 visits his nearest opticians as this is anything but beautifully written, As for the "Legit source" .... Well a link to there official site homepage is hardly "legit source", Clearly promotional & No evidence of notability, Fails ORG & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Pishcal — ♣ 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and a bit of WP:IAR (as a WP:ADMASQ): fails WP:WEB and WP:ORG: no reliable sourcing at all. Article, although not unambiguously promotional, was very likely created for promotion. Esquivalience ^t 19:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:40, 2 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. Sandstein 10:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This isn't a reasonable disambiguation page. I see no particular reason why we should list all the second children of Dukes of Cambridge. I find it hard to believe that anybody is searching for any of the others. In any case, as far as I can tell, we have no comparable disambiguation pages - Fifth child of the King of France, Fourth child of the Earl of Essex, Seventh child of the Tsar of Russia, etc. St Anselm (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page won't be that for long, and the main will be redirected to the baby's first name anyway so may as well delete as it will be redundant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stunningly ridiculous. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation), this page should be moved (with a redirect) to Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
- We cannot delete Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge because it is widely linked to from outside Wikipedia.
- Given that Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge exists and is a disambiguation page it is standard procedure that a redirect exists from Talk:Second child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (disambiguation).
- Note this is the procedure was followed in the case of the widely linked to (and widely referred to) First child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

Either Delete, or Redirect to whatever the child's article name turns out to be. Still a ridiculous page name. Please can we stop making these? -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely pointless!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nobody in their right mind would search any article in such a way '''tAD''' (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm puzzled this was created in the first place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:25, 8 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) 08:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Anka[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG: only one source (Toronto Sun). The rest of the references don't establish notability, just establish that he is active in the world of psychic mediums etc.

Can't see any evidence of wider notability after checking Google, GNews etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of WP:FRIND sources indicate the person has no notability outside the fringe bubble. Could merge any usable material to List of modern channelled texts - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only semi-reliable source on which to build an article is the Toronto Sun, and most would consider that insufficient for notability purposes. I have no strong objection to redirecting to List of modern channelled texts, where the subject is already mentioned, but my impression is that reliable sourcing is needed for anyone in that list. There is not even enough for a redirect and one sentence blurb in Paul Anka. - Location (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I enjoy the in-universe claims ("Darryl Anka.. is a medium who channels an enlightened extraterrestrial", etc), there is just no notability. Bishonen | talk 20:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except He seems to be having a moment. An Indian rock band Motherjane has cut a single based on Anka's Basher character. It's being covered [9] and [10] in The Hindu, one of the world's largest English-language newspapers, and other Indian papers [11], [12].E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those say pretty much nothing about Anka himself - they just note that Motherjane liked him enough to crib from him. Might be good for an "In popular culture" section, but isn't enough to swing a BLP on - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except It's been covered also at the 2012 International Conference of the CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) [13].--Nessie Cult (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Nessie Cult (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you mean "keep"? Not sure what "Except" is supposed to mean. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I do mean "keep". I think there is enough evidence of notability --Nessie Cult (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is one paper, "Darryl Anka and "Bashar": Modern Channeling between Alien Narrative and Ancient Esotericism - Francesco BARONI (Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici, Naples)" Is Baroni noteworthy at all? - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - very little in the way of non-fringe RSes, sadly - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Darryl Anka has worked in Hollywood with films such as Startrek, he has an imdb entry. His cousin is the singer Paul Anka. WIKI entry should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk • contribs) — 90.213.171.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Neither having an IMDb entry or being the cousin of a notable person confers notability - this reason is not in accordance with policy - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the number of notable movies he's worked on has no bearing? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0030138/?ref_=nmbio_bio_nm I'd personally say that this long list of credits more than makes him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being the visual effects guy isn't quite same as being the director or lead actor. And it doesn't give him any notability as a channeller of alien spirits. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, no - if he wasn't noteworthy enough to get actual third-party sources writing about his work, then it's possible the work isn't itself noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- having read further on this man, I agree (for what its worth) to remove. His career choices are bizarre at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.171.231 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether this is a deliberately-entered second career in charlatanism or a once-hard-working professional sadly succumbing to Alzheimer's we can't tell. Another reason to err on the side of caution over a BLP with just shy of sufficient RS. Pax 06:31, 8 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 against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start discussion whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1316 Kasan[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) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure note - I originally closed most on this log (2 May) as redirect to List of minor planets 1000-2000 .... Yeah problem is it doesn't exist so I've had to rollback every single closure I made - I assumed the nom had checked this before adding it above but clearly not .... So not wise to redirect these unless ofcourse you have time to waste!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I'm really sorry about that, all at AfD now being amended, will all be correct within 15 mins. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are a large number of nominations like this, all with the same cookie-cutter text. Let's consider this one as a test case. Firstly, the nomination claims that the subject doesn't pass WP:NASTRO. This claim seems to be false, because the Google Scholar link indicates that there have been specific detailed studies of this object such as this and that in which the spectrum of this object has been analysed in detail. This is given as a specific example in WP:DWMP and so indicates that the object actually passes WP:NASTRO. Nothing is said about this in the nomination which therefore fails WP:BEFORE. The generic nature of the nomination is further apparent in its vague suggestion that we "delete / redirect". Which is it then? Deletion is a severe and specific process which removes the edit history, attribution, talk page and all related detail. Redirection is a comparatively benign process which preserves all this and may be done by ordinary editing. If redirection is a good idea, why has the nominator not tried this first, per WP:ATD? And why do we have to go through this in dozens of separate discussions. Why is the WP:MULTIAFD process not being followed when the nomination is exactly the same in every case? The deletion process is being abused and so these nominations should be speedily terminated to avoid wasting the community's time. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrew Davidson, there have been ongoing discussions about these asteroids since 2012, particularly insisting on discussions (not unilateral redirects) for those numbered below 2000 (as this one is). This doesn't indicate that all below 2000 are notable, but that they should be looked at carefully. Because of the extensive discussions about this, the ATD is not to just unilaterally redirect. There was an AfD on multiple asteroids recently, which was withdrawn because they are different and need to be assessed individually, especially as this is an area not many people have knowledge of - hence them sitting in CAT:NN for over 3 years and the numerous discussions on the Wikiproject and other venues. The nomination may be the same, but the asteroids aren't. Delete / redirect is not intended in any way to be generic, just that I would be happy with either option. NASTRO and ATD would suggest redirect. Hopefully these AfDs will save editors' time - the different editors starting discussions in different Wikiprojects etc., and allow us to resolve the 3 year issue finally. Boleyn (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, you seem to be trying to make a wp:point without doing any kind of background check yourself. NASTRO makes it clear that re-direct or keep are the only options. AFD is not cleanup. You are more interested in CAT:NN then improving astronomical content. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion in Wikipedia requires notability. Just because the object is listed among other objects on a document does not mean it is notable, much less meet astronomical object notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not an option per NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. Also, @Andrew Davidson:, please follow WP:AGF. Votes in AfDs should be based on the merits of the subject of the article, not opinions on the validity of the nomination. While in this case bold change to redirect was considered, it does not hurt Wikipedia to allow for a formal discussion at AfD. While I too would like if these were all together, I am certain that if they were, editors would not check every single one and would only look at a few randomly in determining their notability (which is understandable given there are thousands, I suppose). At least one of the individual noms resulted in keep, and that is the goal here. Weed out the unimportant ones, keep the few that are notable. WP:NASTCRIT says "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." ― Padenton|✉ 15:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. I would add that it would be good if you could limit these to, say, ten per day. The number is getting decidedly unwieldy at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken ping for Boleyn, details here: (Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events) Here ya go: Andrew Davidson, see response above from Boleyn. ― Padenton|✉ 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a LARGE Mars-crossing asteroid and not one of the thousands of meaningless main-belt asteroid stubs created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does it being a Mars-crossing asteroid mean it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Mars crosser, the asteroid is notable for its ~10km diameter alone. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being only the 20th discovered Mars crosser asteroid, it deserves a redirect only as much as 20 Massalia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:58, 11 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. Sandstein 10:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2617 Jiangxi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / redirect to ~~List of minor planets 2000-3000~~ List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2617 Jiangxi is more than 50km in diameter. When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50km in diameter deserves an article. Asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is lame to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. Boleyn, please quit nominating asteroids more than 50km in diameter. 2617 Jiangxi also has light-curve studies. I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Padenton - fails NASTRO, fails GNG. Kheider's notability criteria above does not appear to reflect NASTRO, and to me at least, appears to have been made up by them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. I am not even sure if Boleyn is actively involved in astronomy topics. -- Kheider (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, you are making up your own standards for notability, when they aren't reflected anywhere in Wikipedia. Thanks for admitting that. (and if you're just going to copy-paste the exact same comment across two or more places, then so will I.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As one of Wikipedia's asteroid expert's I will have to have a review of NASTRO to hopefully prevent excessive re-directs from people that are more interesting in AfDs that may harm the project than cleaning up the main-belt asteroid problem. Luke, you are aware that Boleyn is just copy-pasting the same argument to 100s of MBA stubs he looks at? -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kheider, while all of that may be true, we aren't recklessly re-directing here, it's at AfD where interested parties can discuss, and I believe there have been ones that were kept once someone brought up the sources that met NASTRO's criteria. Is there any reason that this particular article subject meets the NASTRO criteria?― Padenton|✉ 16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fairly large main-belt asteroid as most asteroids are not 50+ km in diameter. It also has light-curve studies. The size alone should be notable enough. There are 612752 main-belt asteroids that are physically smaller and I agree most of them should be re-directed. There are over 400000 main belt asteroids known that are less than 5km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say there are "light-curve studies" (plural), what studies specifically are you referring to? Because I only see a single one [14] in which it appears as part of a group of 22 asteroids in the study. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 7 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: 21001–22000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

21022 Ike[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 21000-22000~~ List of minor planets: 21001–22000. Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1454 Kalevala[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) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Kampala[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) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1387 Kama[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) 08:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1519 Kajaani[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) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1587 Kahrstedt[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) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1874 Kacivelia[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) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; this one appears as data entries in several scholarly articles, but most are positional reports and are insufficient to demonstrate notability. There is one photometry study.[15] Praemonitus (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1676 Kariba[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) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; one photometric study found Praemonitus (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1678 Hveen[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) 08:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1878 Hughes[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) 07:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1285 Julietta[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) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A 1937 study of its orbital elements [16] isn't enough, and that's all I found. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1423 Jose[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) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: this one appears in several scholarly articles. Praemonitus (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject of multiple studies in the 1930s-1950s by C. Lombardi. Curiously, this source says its diameter is 32km but this one says 15km (the JPL Small-Body Database Browser is in the middle at 26km). The 15km source also says it is unclassified, but this later source puts it in the Koronis family, and (going by the JPL diameter) it should be listed there as one of the larger objects in the family. So I think there's definitely enough material for an actual article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Several sources have been found, and I believe the article just meets notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 10 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1699 Honkasalo[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) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. One photometric study.[17] Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1662 Hoffmann[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) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Redirect per WP:DWMP; it appears briefly in a few studies, but the net total appear insufficient. Praemonitus (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 4 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1642 Hill[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) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 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) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1495 Helsinki[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) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure about this one. There is a light curve study and it looks like it is in a study of the Eunomia family, but I don't have access to Icarus.[18] Praemonitus (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Re Praemonitus's link: this object is, literally, a line in several tables, listed along with many other asteroids. There is no actual article text about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I can also confirm that 1495 Helsinki only gets listed in a few tables without any substantial text. There does not appear to be enough information available to create a substantial article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:22, 10 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) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1885 Herero[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) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 4 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) 08:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1273 Helma[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) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP; it gets a few mentions in scholarly articles, but probably not enough. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Apparently it's a fragment of Vesta but I don't think that's a sufficiently unusual property in the absence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 4 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) 08:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1934 Jeffers[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) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 4 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 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Karbyshev[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) 07:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 4 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 02:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1987 Kaplan[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) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. This one was more difficult to check because it matches a widely referenced source in a different field. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 4 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: 17001–18000. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17509 Ikumadan[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: 17001–18000. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉ 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Just one light curve study.[19] Praemonitus (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we redirect, can we move all the infobox information into the list? Can that be done in an automated process for all in the 1000 range? I am thinking of how to best compile information for readers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:23, 6 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) 08:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lyons[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. A handful of minor roles. No significant coverage to merit WP:GNG. Is a WP:BLP and I suspect a WP:COI. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A film and television extra with a minor part in Star Wars fandom. He doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, just mentions on Star Wars websites and forums and merchandise sites. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This guy has an impressive pedigree and to be honest, I kind of wish that there'd been coverage of him out there somewhere. That he'd be an uncredited extra in so many popular films and shows is pretty interesting, so I imagine that he'd have some fun stories to tell. Unfortunately that just hasn't been the case here and none of his roles have ever been major enough to where he would attract notice. Sometimes people who routinely play as an extra will gain coverage enough to where they'd warrant an article, but this just doesn't seem to be one of those times. It's really, really unfortunate but Wikipedia just can't make up the difference when there's no coverage. He's not even really that big of a person in the film about the SW extras since I can't find anything out there about his specific role in this upcoming film. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy the data in case any sources do emerge, although I will admit that it's probably going to take some serious letter writing campaigns to get any of the mainstream media outlets to notice and write about him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 3 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) Esquivalience ^t 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4451 Grieve[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 4000-5000. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a pair of photometric studies as well as mentions in other journal articles, some of which I can't access. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the photometric studies [20] [21] it's mentioned as having an unusual spectrum [22], enough I think to distinguish it from other asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Huge Mars-crosser. -- Kheider (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per all the good arguments above. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 8 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) 08:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetics departments at universities[edit]

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

I explained briefly on the Talk page of this article why the article in its present form should be deleted. Its title implies that it lists universities with a Phonetics Department, but the universities on the list do not have departments with the name 'Department of Phonetics', though they do do teaching and research in phonetics. There are very few Departments of Phonetics left in the world, most having been absorbed into larger academic units. If the article were to be changed to list all places where phonetics is taught, researched and studied, it would be useful, but this article is so far short of being comprehensive that I believe it to be very misleading. RoachPeter (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note This is a failed AfD nomination that has been sitting in limbo for months. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared in a daily AfD Log. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear. Besides what the nomination says it is quite possible that the word "phonetics" means different things in different languages, at least as it relates to a topic of study. Borock (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Rpclod (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1687 Glarona[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) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 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|✉ 17:37, 10 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) 17:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1845 Helewalda[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) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: three photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Maybe three is enough? But they're all group studies rather than being dedicated specifically to this object. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Browser[edit]

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

Non-notable product, sources do not sufficiently establish notability. Article creator has an obvious WP:COI. Drm310 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update User:Jimfbleak speedied the page per an earlier WP:G11 nomination. --Drm310 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1812 Gilgamesh[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) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 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|✉ 17:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Davewild (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1612 Hirose[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) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 6 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|✉ 17:34, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3854 George[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: 3001–4000. Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three light curve studies and a paper on the Cybele and Hungaria groups. Praemonitus (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced the lightcurve studies amount to much, but this conference abstract seems to be claiming that this is the main object in its asteroid family. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a reasonable number of sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 10 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2093 Genichesk[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 2000-3000. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 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]

Keep: At least three papers found on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with a couple of lightcurve studies that I wouldn't think of as enough by themselves [23] [24] there are several papers on its unusual chemical composition as part of the Baptistina family and suggestions that it may be related to the K/T impactor [25] [26] [27]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 9 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) 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1668 Hanna[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) 07:35, 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) 19:58, 5 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|✉ 17:32, 10 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) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Laurie[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Blatant advertising. Brief 1-2 sentence "interviews" and sitting through various talkshows does not establish notability. Created and expanded almost entirely by SPA accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick Google search of his name reveals his association and/or employment with CNN Airport Network as a travel expert, WFLA-TV in Tampa as a travel correspondent, a published and on the market publication through Amazon and notes he's a blogger for the Huffington Post. Also he produced and hosted a television travel show on Discovery Networks. 72.189.86.140 (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those occupations automatically establishes encyclopedic notability (see WP:GNG and WP:BIO), unless significant coverage from reliable independent sources can be shown - that typically excludes self-published information, short mentions, annoucements and other PR-activities by himself or connected organisations. GermanJoe (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bobby Laurie co-hosts TAKE OFF! with the Savvy Stews though Discovery network, writes for The Huffington Post, has a weekly travel segment on The Daily Buzz, and many other television programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki4476 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Wiki4476 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TNT The subject probably is notable, but this current article is just a blatant promotion. Get rid of it and make a better, neutral article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC, many passing mentions but no actual coverage from reliable sources. If found to be notable, then stubify because the article is in a very poor state, and I suspect COI or paid editing due to the highly promotional nature of the article. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I was tempted to close it as delete, but lest us give one more week to increase the participation--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some articles peripherally quote the subject as a "flight attendant" but do not discuss the subject. There is no indication of notability. This seems like WP:SELFPROMOTION.--Rpclod (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not yet been widely discussed. I found this article, but other that he has not been the subject of an articles, just gives quotes. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:37, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2335 James[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) 07:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple papers found covering secular resonances. Praemonitus (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of its unusual orbit — see [28] and eight papers that cite it among others (also [29], an earlier paper that also mentions its resonances). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mars-crossing Asteroid, so not one of 616000+ known main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 21:38, 6 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: 22001–23000. Davewild (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22732 Jakpor[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: 22001–23000. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No results at Google Scholar ― Padenton|✉ 17:31, 10 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) 16:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1942 Jablunka[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) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 5 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|✉ 17:31, 10 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. Sandstein 10:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1200 Imperatrix[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) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. One lightcurve study [30] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 5 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: 22001–23000. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22706 Ganguly[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: 22001–23000. Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single result at Google Scholar ― Padenton|✉ 17:30, 10 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) 16:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1893 Jakoba[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) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing at all found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) Not a single search result at google scholar. Not a good sign. ― Padenton|✉ 17:30, 10 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) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1363 Herberta[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) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 5 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|✉ 17:29, 10 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) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1843 Jarmila[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) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 5 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|✉ 17:28, 10 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) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1320 Impala[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) 07:25, 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]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. There's a lot more mentions of this minor planet than the others, but still, all I'm seeing on Google scholar is part of a list in a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:26, 10 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) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1872 Helenos[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) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mentioned a few times in papers about Trojans but being a Trojan is not in itself interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 5 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 NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:17, 10 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) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1932 Jansky[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) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Used as an example in a paper about how to compute the orbital elements of asteroids with highly inclined orbits [31] but it's really only a line in a table there and I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability). Inconveniently, it appears a lot of the results relate to its namesake, Jansky, who had publications in 1932. ― Padenton|✉ 17:16, 10 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) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1435 Garlena[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) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:13, 10 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) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1813 Imhotep[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) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is about lists of several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTRO as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 17:12, 10 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) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1596 Itzigsohn[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) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 17:11, 10 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16524 Hausmann[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: 16001–17000. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). As David Eppstein said, nothing at all on Google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 17:07, 10 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) 08:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ham Kinsey[edit]

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

Not sure if this passes notability or not. He was mainly just Stan Laurel's body double it appears. (so I guess if this is kept a merge to Stan would be the best) Wgolf (talk) 00:27, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 17 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) 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge - News and newspapers archive found nothing but Books found some results so maybe a small merge can be supported. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMDb is not authoritative and otherwise WP:ENTERTAINER criteria is not met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. --Inother (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable extra from the Silent era. Pax 06:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:56, 9 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1479 Inkeri[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) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: two light curve studies, including one with an unusually long rotation period. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced that a light curve study or two would be enough by itself, but in this case one of them specifically calls out (in its title) the long period as being interesting. (Note that for instance 1689 Floris-Jan is called out in the literature as having an unusually long rotational period at six days; this one is over 27 days). Note however that the other lightcurve study ("Asteroid Lightcurve Analysis at the Via Capote Observatory: First Quarter 2008") appears to be totally wrong in its conclusions about this body (which it states very tentatively), so really we only have one good study. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is notable for having a 660 hour rotation period. -- Kheider (talk) 11:30, 8 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 against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start a discussion on whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1374 Isora[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. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May

2015 (UTC)

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At ~10km in diameter, it is one of the largest Mars-crossing asteroids. Boleyn is simply on a crusade to clean-up Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability and has no interest in astronomy topics. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is wrong to make a personal comment - well, personal attack - like that, especially as it isn't true. Please comment on the notability of the topic under consideration rather than making wild accusations. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You appear to be picking on every numbered asteroid listed at CAT:NN and have no regard for any borderline asteroids. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type can be harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). My understanding is that NASTRO requires multiple publications, about the asteroid itself. I see 1 publication about this one asteroid and it does not appear to have any citations. I see no fault in attempting to clean up topics of unclear notability, and am unaware of a policy/guideline saying that discussions like these can only involve experts in the subject. It's a stub (as are the few mars-crossing asteroids with articles). I will happily reconsider if Kheider or another could explain more about how being a large mars-crossing asteroid would grant notability to 1374 Isora. ― Padenton|✉ 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DWMP is what you should probably be looking at as it deals more specifically with the asteroid problem created by bots generating articles from roughly 2004 to 2008. NASTRO requires notability, just like any Wikipedia article. Haphazardly re-directly borderline candidates probably does more harm than good to the project. Of the 13000+ Mars-crossing asteroids (MCAs) known, very few are known to be 10+km in diameter. So MCAs with an "absmag of (H) < 13.2" should probably be kept. -- Kheider (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The query you give for known 10+km Mars-crossers fails to list this object. The reason is that its diameter is not known, but can only be estimated very approximately from its brightness. So saying that it should be kept for its large diameter, and because a certain list (that it is not included in) happens to be small seems a bit disingenuous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter can be reasonably estimated from the absmag. Yes, it should be kept for the abs mag alone. There are not that many Mars-crossers that are that bright (or approximately that large). -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Kheider. It would seem logical that if some Mars-crossing asteroids are not individually notable, a list article retaining this content via merger would be an appropriate organization scheme. However, AfD is not for cleanup, and I do not see anyone volunteering yet to take on this important work if reorganization is appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The best thing to do with all of these poorly written asteroid articles is not to redirect them, but to clean them up. Of course redirecting them is much easier, but fixing the articles is much better for wikipedia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience:Have you actually looked at these articles? Their problem isn't that they need cleanup. It's their notability. ― Padenton|✉ 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I believe the current qualifications of notability for asteroids is quite specific compared to others, and people are deleting large asteroids that make close approaches to mars or are Jupiter Trojans, while leaving extremely minor articles on completely non-notable things in the rest of Wikipedia. Just look at Special:Random. Even the tiniest asteroids are more important than a music album by a minor band, because these asteroids have existed for billions of years, together playing a part in how the Earth and the entire solar system formed, and yet there are still articles on little towns in France and Germany that are considered notable simply because other people thought they were, enough so to write articles on them. Unfortunately, the topic of astronomy is so little cared about by today's populace that little study is done on even important asteroids, while people stalk celebrities, looking where they ate for lunch and what color of shirt they're wearing. It gets quite tiresome attempting to explain how each asteroid is notable in @Boleyn 's numerous article deletion discussions. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The solution to that is nominating more songs, not disingenuous keep votes for articles. ― Padenton|✉ 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution is to clear out the very small completely unnoticeable main-belt asteroids before blindly attacking hundreds of asteroids just because they are listed at CAT:NN. -- Kheider (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer a different order, perhaps you could help nominate some? We are discussing them individually, and the ones that are notable are being kept. I've seen several where editors (mostly Dr. Eppstein) have found publications that might support the notability of an asteroid. Actually, even when found non-notable, they're all being converted to redirects, so in the event they actually are notable (and just no one's presented the evidence yet) it can be undone fairly easily with a little discussion. I do believe WP:DELREV allows for those appeals (WP:DRVPURPOSE #3). Or maybe the correct venue is WP:RFD. Either way, a venue exists to easily undo any mistakes made in these AfDs if/when these asteroids actually have notability. ― Padenton|✉ 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient substantial references available to satisfy notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:46, 11 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) 16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1531 Hartmut[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) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself at google scholar. ― Padenton|✉ 16:53, 10 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) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1914 Hartbeespoortdam[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) 07:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Somewhat unusual as V-type but outside the Vesta family [32] but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:51, 10 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) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1744 Harriet[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) 07:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. This one has a few more mentions than the rest, but nastro requires specific coverage of the single object. ― Padenton|✉ 16:49, 10 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: 15001–16000. Davewild (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15071 Hallerstein[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: 15001–16000. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Absolutely no mentions of this object found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself (not even a mention at google scholar). ― Padenton|✉ 16:47, 10 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) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1483 Hakoila[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) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:47, 10 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) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1894 Haffner[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) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO No significant coverage found on this object itself. ― Padenton|✉ 16:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy TechZone[edit]

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

No substantive refs other than own web-site and a map. No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why it it is marked as 'no notability'. Embassy TechVillage is a business park in Pune with over 17000 employees, and occupied by companies like IBM and Volkswagen. Added citations from reliable news sites like Times of India, Moneycontrol.com.

Weak Keep It has some decent sources, which show some notability. If possible some more good sources would be good. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references are either non-authoritative or only peripherally mention the subject. Nothing suggests this meets WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated links from authority websites.^[1] ^[2] ^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1245 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Blackstone-Embassy-SPV-to-look-at-REIT-listing-in-Singapore/articleshow/16913100.cms
^ http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/private-equity-majors-bet-big-on-commercial-assets/1/195538.html
^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/trioz-opens-unit-at-sez/article760968.ece
^ http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blackstone-embassy-jv-shelves-2-bn-reit-listing-115042400042_1.html
^ http://www.livemint.com/Companies/TuDKe0Rb2I8flYbJNNQoEI/Embassy-Blackstone-to-buy-leased-office-asset-for-680-cr.html
^ http://www.livemint.com/Companies/PkZLcm7JqQhHsdQyQ448IO/Realty-firms-funds-to-wait-and-watch-trajectory-of-REIT-lis.html
^ http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/blackstone-embassy-targets-rs-5k-cr-reit-listing-in-fy16/29740/
^ http://www.dealcurry.com/20140825-Blackstone-May-Pick-Up-Stake-In-Embassy-Services.htm

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources are unsuitable passing-mentions. A common office building...most cities have dozens. Pax 06:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources cited do not meet WP:RS as they are passing mentions. This is a typical office building by sources provided. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tech park, not an OFFICE BUILDING. All citations added are from reliable news websites like thehindu.com, and the news are not just passing mentions, it's about the park only. Kindly go through the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sureshkajal (talk • contribs) 08:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Hoffman[edit]

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

Person only notable for founding a questionably-notable company. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found nothing even in the slightest to improve the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Borsuk, Alan J. (2002-12-31). "MPS spokesman writes books for children - Stories aim to build pride, self-esteem in kids as they grow up". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  You've seen him on billboards and the sides of buses, on McDonald's tray liners, on posters throughout the Milwaukee Public Schools system and, most definitely, on television. He even attracted attention last spring when he put a cappuccino machine in his office at the MPS Central Administration Building (it's gone now, by the way).
  Now, coming to bookshelves across America, it's Don Hoffman.
  Hoffman, a former television news reporter and current spokesman for MPS, has -- on his own time, he emphasizes -- written two children's books scheduled to go on sale in Wal-Marts, Targets and Kmarts, as well as in major chain bookstores, by mid-January.
  The books, "Billy Is a Big Boy" and "Abigail Is a Big Girl," aim to build the pride and self-esteem young children feel as they conquer challenges of growing up, such as moving out of diapers and cribs and learning to tie their shoes, Hoffman says.
  Hoffman and local illustrator Todd Dakins developed the books over the last several years. A hardcover version of the "Billy" book was published in 2000, but now paperback versions of both books are being published by Dalmatian Press, based in Nashville.
  ...
  Hoffman, 37, who is particularly visible as the host of the MPS television program called "Making the Grade" or "MTG," does not have children of his own. He said he began writing children's literature several years ago, drawing in part on memories of his teenage years, when his mother had a baby. His mother subsequently became ill and Hoffman became responsible for much of his little sister's care.
2. Schultze, Steve (2000-09-10). "Book for kids may help literacy project grow up, too - New publisher, TV reporter and Sam's Hope reading program join forces". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  With visions of national distribution and promotion for the children's book "Billy Is a Big Boy," the group gathered at the Borders bookstore in Fox Point in an upbeat celebration and book signing. The author, WDJT-TV (Channel 58) news reporter Don Hoffman, read the book to squeals of delight from a preschool audience.
  But he shared the praise with Susan Pittleman, his publisher, and Barbara Garner, the self-titled executive director of Sam's Hope, a literacy and book distribution program that began three years ago as a mitzvah project for Garner's now 14-year-old son Sam.
  The trio -- Hoffman, Pittleman and Barbara Garner -- agreed that it was the combination that has pushed "Billy" to the brink of a national audience. Hoffman, who has covered education and the arts at Channel 58 for the past five years, provided the story of a young boy mastering such accomplishments as moving from diapers to underwear, riding a two-wheel bike, tying shoelaces and learning the alphabet.
3. Schulhofer-Wohl, Sam (2002-01-18). "Recruiting has joined the three R's at MPS - Ubiquitous campaign for students even reaches McDonald's place mats". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
  The article notes:
  
  First, it was free chili dinners at Milwaukee Public Schools open houses. Then came ubiquitous radio ads. Soon, Don Hoffman's face on the paper place mats at a McDonald's near you.
  The public school system's promotional efforts are reaching newly feverish heights this winter. Although years of vouchers and other competition-based reforms mean it's no longer a novelty to see MPS promoting schools the way Procter & Gamble sells Tide, the district is pushing harder because it's starting to see real results, spokesman Hoffman said.
  ...
  "It's cool -- it's real -- it's back," the place mats proclaim. "MTG with Don Hoffman."
  The mats display the logos of "MTG" and its corporate sponsors, list the show's Web site and include a 2 1/2-inch-high picture of Hoffman.
  "MTG" airs at 10:30 a.m. and midnight Sundays on WISN-TV (Channel 12). Hosted by Hoffman, it features a panel of local teenagers discussing such issues as sex, tattoos and eating disorders, according to a postcard MPS mailed to every household in Milwaukee promoting the show.
  On the postcard, too, the only identifiable person depicted is Hoffman. He plays an increasingly large role in MPS' image -- showing up, for example, on bus shelter posters all over town when he hosted a public lecture series last summer -- even though the School Board has never confirmed him as chief spokesman.
  MPS promoted the former WDJT-TV (Channel 58) reporter to acting director of communications and public affairs when spokeswoman Karen Salzbrenner left in September.
  ...MPS promoted the former WDJT-TV (Channel 58) reporter to acting director of communications and public affairs when spokeswoman Karen Salzbrenner left in September.
  Hoffman said using his picture helps people recognize that MPS is sponsoring a program.
  "In the branding of any type of a show, there's got to be a reason of how people identify a show," he said.
4. According to http://donhoffmanauthor.com/documents/blurbspdfrev2.pdf^WebCite, his books have been reviewed by the Cleveland Daily Banner, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, School Library Journal, The Capital Times, The Port Arthur News, the News Chief, the Milwaukee Magazine, Midwest Book Review, Alan Caruba of Bookviews.com, and Metro Parent Publishing Group.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Don Hoffman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article shows WP:AUTHOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." see WP:ARTN Coolabahapple (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article suggests that the subject is notable pursuant to WP:AUTHOR.--Rpclod (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with Cunard, with over 1000000 sales records and multiple reviews for his books, found just by google search, the notability is clearly establsihed Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Arthistorian1977: could you please add (or link) some of these reviews you've found? So far, you've added a press-release, which is not a RS. Pax 06:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I find evidence that his books are in libraries [33]. However, I do not see any of his books listed in Booklist, which means that they haven't been reviewed by the main library recommender service. Most of his books come out of small presses, but the 2008 one was published by Scholastic Press, which is considered a major publisher in the juvenile field. Kirkus Reviews, however, did not give that book ("Sparky...") a good review, and he did not publish subsequent books with Scholastic. What I'm getting here is a non-notable author of mediocre children's books. LaMona (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found some review of his book here : [34] Arthistorian1977 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - best-selling author; books have been reviewed in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources provided by Cunard. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New England Interstate Route 19[edit]

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

This article is for a New England highway that was supposedly defined in a road plan in 1922 but apparently never publicly signed. It has remained unsourced for nine years. I don't believe this passes the general notability guideline in its current state, and even if it does, sources need to be found to confirm the claims made here. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless some sources can be found to verify. - SimonP (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of individual New England interstate routes is notable so the article should not be deleted on that grounds. However, sources need to be found and some of these sources may not be online and readily available to most people. If someone can find the 1922 road plan and verify this route was planned that would help a lot. Dough4872 17:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a road that was planned, but never deployed, really still notable in its own right? I'm honestly puzzled about this. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a notable road was planned but never built or assigned its number it is still notable for coverage. We have articles about Interstate Highways that were never built. Dough4872 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess the question I should be asking is: is a road notable if no reliable sources can be found? I think that ipso facto the answer is no. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Either the article should be kept, or all of the NEIR pages should be merged into a list(s). Either way, the appropriate sources must be found. Charlotte Allison (Allen/Morriswa) (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SimonP (find sources!) –Fredddie ™ 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. --Rs chen 7754 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only source I know of is the list of New England routes, including the cities they pass through, on the inside back cover of the 1925 ALA Automobile Green Book (Vol. 1). I no longer have access to this source and am currently trying to get it through an interlibrary loan. In any case, this is such a minor road that it probably does not deserve its own article anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to temporarily get a copy of the book through interlibrary loan. The information on the New England Highway System is on pp. 28-30. The routing of Highway 19 is listed there. However, such pole marking (No. 19) is not used in any of the actual turn by turn guides the route supposedly goes through. These instead appear to be marked using a combination of Maine State Highway 116 and 122 for the non-overlapped portions of the route. The scanned pages are here (pp.28-29) and here (pp.30-31). I still think it does not deserve a stand-alone article though. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.kiwi[edit]

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

Non-notable, one of thousands of new TLDs, unsourced stub. Be..anyone (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)-gadfium 06:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Generic top-level domain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not again, there are already two completely bogus sections .BUILDERS and .CAMP on this page, these two uppercase abominations and a .kiwi would turn the page into a domain junkyard. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – consensus at the .builders and .camp deletion discussions (linked) was to merge to Generic top-level domain. How are the sections in the article "bogus"? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are irrelevant (aka "not notable") unless something special can be reported. Wikipedia is no phone book for hundreds of domains, that's the job of ICANN+IANA. Wikipedia is also no free promotional platform for the purposes of "domainers", a lovely redirect barely missing cyber squatting. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be..anyone: Note the plethora of sources I have listed below that provide significant coverage about this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable enough to stand on its own. NealeFamily (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthAmerica - you invited me to review my response in light of Justnotnotable. I have done so and also taken a look at your list of references below. My conclusion is that the article on Generic top-level domain contains sufficient discussion on new domain names and that this does not add to that discussion, nor does it meet the notability guidelines. Adding a reference to enable looking up the IANA list of top level domain names (IANA domain name list) would be sufficient. NealeFamily (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains#Oceania as a more appropriate target than the one suggested above.-gadfium 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:N. Source examples providing significant coverage include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13], ^[14]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Dot kiwi domain name reservations set to begin". TVNZ.
^ "Trademark holders have a month to get .kiwi domain names". scoop.co.nz.
^ "Kiwi domain is almost ready to join the dots". Stuff.
^ Sathya Mithra Ashok. "All Kiwis can apply for a .kiwi domain name now". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Thousands switch to .kiwi domain". Stuff. 14 May 2014.
^ James Henderson. "12K and counting as Dot Kiwi captures NZ imagination". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Dot Kiwi Celebrates First Anniversary". scoop.co.nz.
^ "Real estate tops .kiwi domain". Stuff.
^ "Dot Kiwi fails to knock out .kiwi.nz". Stuff.
^ "NZ web users may get .kiwi domain". The New Zealand Herald.
^ James Henderson. ""Watershed day" as NZ domain name game hots up". Computerworld New Zealand.
^ "Dot Kiwi domain names in hot demand". TVNZ. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.
^ Field, Tony (December 2, 2013). "Dot kiwi enters internet domain names". 3 News. Retrieved May 5, 2015.
^ ".kiwi domain names go live after two years of planning". Scoop News. March 18, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

– After performing this research, I have struck my initial !vote atop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no significant coverage, as in anything to improve upon the stub-like nature of this, as there is nothing interesting to say other than it is a new TLD for NZ, which the mention at List of Internet top-level domains covers adequately.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good/acceptable/interesting "Geo-TLD" articles, .paris, .saarland, .cat, .berlin, .nyc, .asia, etc., but so far only North America tried to find a story for .kiwi. OTOH all "sunrise"/"landrush" period stories are in essence always the same idea, not "interesting"/"notable"/relevant or whatver from my POV. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: additional sources:

[35] (HighBeam subscription needed)
Richard, W. & Raphael, W. (2012). The new top-level domain names. Mondaq Business Briefing. [36] (HighBeam subscription needed).

- Esquivalience ^t 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica1000—thanks for putting the work into finding sources. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NA1000's findings, As dumb as the name is notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. I have struck my previous comment.-gadfium 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Brown (Ottawa politician)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Ottawa City Council does not imply notability,and he hasn't been elected to Parliament yet. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ottawa city councillors have been deemed notable in the past. It is an internationally known city as it is the capital of a G8 country. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. To pass, a municipal-level politician would have to get significatn media coverage, but all I can find for Brown is routine, election-related coverage. Of course, his is a very common name. If there is coverage out there and someone finds, it, I am willing to reconsider. It would take stuff like profiles in major publications, or articles about his political leadership on some major issue.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His career on council was pre-internet, so of course you're not going to find major publications doing a basic Google search. Looks like Bearcat did find a lot of good sources from the Ottawa Citizen though. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that serving on a city council is not generally accepted as a notability claim in most cities, it is accepted as a notability claim, fully satisfying WP:NPOL, if the city is an internationally famous global city such as Toronto, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco or London. And that class of cities does include Ottawa — whenever deletion has been attempted in the past on an Ottawa city councillor, consensus has always landed at a keep. The sourcing here definitely needed improvement over where it was at the time of nomination — but I've reffed it up significantly via ProQuest, further improvement is still possible (I added maybe 15 per cent of what I could have), and the basic notability claim is sufficient under both WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Earl Andrew and Bearcat. Councillors in a capital city of 900,000 by all means will "have received significant press coverage" to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Cloutier[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Ottawa City Council does not imply notability,and he hasn't been elected to higher office. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been decided previously that Ottawa was notable enough for its city councillors to have articles. It is an internationally known city as it is the capital of a G8 country. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria as a city councilor of a national capital and well-known and large international city.--TM 10:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that serving on a city council is not generally accepted as a notability claim in most cities, it is accepted as a notability claim, fully satisfying WP:NPOL, if the city is an internationally famous global city such as Toronto, New York City, Washington, D.C., San Francisco or London. And that class of cities does include Ottawa — whenever deletion has been attempted in the past on an Ottawa city councillor, consensus has always landed at a keep, and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the consensus to permit articles about city councillors in internationally famous metropolitan global cities has deteriorated at all. The sourcing here definitely needs improvement, but improvement is possible and the basic notability claim is sufficient under both WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Councillors in a capital city of 900,000 by all means will "have received significant press coverage" to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 05:10, 3 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 04:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collegium Augustinianum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to say a bit more, from doing a lot of poking around on the web (see Talk:Collegium_Augustinianum#some_web_research and other sections on that page), this is a virtual academic institution (which is not a bad thing) but i have found no substantial sources discussing it. seems to be WP:PROMO - fwiw, was created by a user who only edited related topics - see Special:Contributions/Augustinestudent -- Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and / or related articles have also been edited by a number of sockpuppets of the original editor. There appear to be other sockpuppets as well. Anglicanus (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this their website ? http://www.augustinianum.us/ --C E (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep. please do review the article's talk page Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am surprised, but I could find no authoritative coverage of this subject. Further the article's references are either irrelevant, peripheral, or from the subject's own website. I could find no suggestion of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, I found no secondary sources to establish Collegium Augustinianum as notable. Also delete per WP:ORGSIG. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:28, 2 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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers[edit]

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

Almost entirely plagiarized from various other sources while containing essentially no substance: an advertisement or news release created by the organization, overall badly formatted and has questionable significance. Outside of the fact that it's almost entirely copy-pasted from other webpages, it has glaring issues. The opening has pov problems, the information says little about it, the infobox is unnecessary, the first section is insignificant, the second is a restatement of part of the opening, the third is basically a press release and contains pointless information, the fourth is extremely statistically dubious and localized and basically an advertisement, the fifth contains absolutely no information besides documenting a celebration by them, the sixth is a single sentence that describes a single fundraiser, and the last has PoV issues and is again a press release. This article started as one chunk of text with Wikipedia edit and section bracketed areas, suggesting another article under some similar name may have existed and been deleted. Overall, horrible quality, extreme plagiarism and it's and ultimately irredeemable. MillenniumMeh (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam per WP:CSD#G11, and will tag as such. --Finngall ^talk 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to weak delete per Staszek Lem comment below. The spammy content has been removed, but campaigns such as this tend to get some initial short-term attention and then disappear--if deleted, there should be no prejudice against recreation if the campaign proves to have staying power and gains additional coverage in the future. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify(ing): Borderline notable ([37][38][39][40][41]- they all spend a few paragraphs on them), but the article is highly promotional. I have stubified the article. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a personal grief but nonnotable campaign. Of course, since t6his is a campaign, it is advertised and will find a couple of newspater articles. But otherwise no significant cultural impact. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the stub. Government-recognition[42] otherwise confers notability. Also note: "The John R. Elliott HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase reveals only 969 / 12 web/news results on Google, but "HERO Campaign for Designated Drivers" as an exact phrase lists 243,000 / 12,000 web/news results, so searching with the longer term will inhibit acquiring more RS. Pax 07:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITORG. Sad that their son died but Wikipedia is not a memorial website. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There's also a NASCAR series named after him which has been in existence for fifteen years. Pax 04:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The linked event is a race, not a series, and NASCAR races frequently change official names from year to year based on sponsorship. The July NASCAR Xfinity Series race at Kentucky Speedway was only named after this campaign for last year's race. This sponsorship was apparently just a one-year deal, as this year's edition of the race is not currently being advertised under the same title, but merely as the "Kentucky 300", indicating that title sponsorship for the race has not yet been sold. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Yash! ^(Y) 04:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gruban Malić[edit]

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

Delete: don't know what this is but it doesn't smell kosher. Quis separabit? 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I am not even sure where to start with this one.--Rpclod (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only hope that the excellent analysis listed below is added to the original article.--Rpclod (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miodrag Bulatović. I can find some discussion of the character although most of it is in places that I can't entirely verify ([43], [44], [45]). I get the feeling that he would likely pass notability guidelines if we could access these and have someone look into the foreign language sources, but until then I have to say that this should be merged and redirected to the author's article with the article history intact. I've found enough evidence to suggest that the hoax incident is notable enough to at least include in the author's article and I also strongly get the impression that much of the coverage of the character and the hoax was in a foreign language, so it may not be easily accessed with an English language search (one source mentions a Hebrew language paper and Hebrew can't be easily searched with English)- especially since pre/early internet sources are not always on the web. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to a keep based on the additional sources found since I posted this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides the 1998 article linked in our article, this 2009 story carries the same story with more information than is in our article. The Boston Globe article about the vague wanted poster is apparently "A `Wanted' poster that leaves any pursuers wanting [City Edition] Boston Globe, Boston, Mass., Lakshmanan, Indira A R, Mar 10, 1996". I can only see the abstract as I am not a subscriber. This is a working link to the original indictment of GRUBAN while this shows the charges dropped. The ICTY does not identify him as Gruban Malic. Whether the hoax was in the indictment or the identification of him with the fictional character, his story is still significant as anti-Western (anti-American, anti-ICTY) and later anti-Richard Goldstone (Israel) propaganda. Rmhermen (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes little to no sense to the average reader/editor, and reads like a rambling conspiracy theory. If it is to stay (and I support deletion or merger) it needs to be clarified. Quis separabit? 05:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a hoax it is fairly straight forward - one person told a bad joke, another didn't realize it was a joke. Doesn't seem confusing as written to me. Rmhermen (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep, meets WP:GNG, at present 2 or 3 of the article's references are notable.

Of the ten references/footnotes presently cited in the article:

1. [46] is a review of the 1966 book Hero on a Donkey by Miodrag Bulatović in which Gruben first appeared.

2. [47] is a couple of sentences mentioning Bulatović's Gruban; the book is The Rackham Journal of the Arts and Humanities by Ann Arbor, published by Graduate Students at the University of Michigan in 1987.

3. [48] from The Eerie World of Miodrag Bulatović in The Slavic and East European Journal 12 (3) discusses the life and writings of Bulatović including Hero on a Donkey.

4. [49] When Goldstone Indicted a Fictional Character (and a Dead Man) Judge Goldstone, who said Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, once indicted a fictional Serbian character and a dead man for war crimes as well. By Nissan Ratzlav-Katz of Arutz Sheva, israelnationnews.com; discusses the Gruban hoax in depth and detail.

5. [50] Genocidalism by Aleksandar Jokic appearing in The Journal of Ethics Vol. 8, No. 3 (2004), pp.251-297 is only accessible by members.

1. [51] outsider paradigm and war appearing in REC-magazine for literature and culture and social issues by Tihomir Brajovic is a discussion of Serbian war literature has a paragraph on Bulatović's "donkey main hero Malic', there is no mention of Gruban.

2. [52] Deceit of the Century in the Book by Nebojsa Jevic Phantom on the Wanted Poster by Pavle PAVLOVIC for the Serbian Network is another discussing the hoax.

3. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia wikipedia article on the ICTA with no mention of Gruban The other link leads to general [53] ICTY site, Gruban search brings up nothing.

4. an op. cit.

5. similar to 3. although thanks to Rmhermen who has found 2 sites that show a ICTY indictment of a Gruban and that charges have been dropped but with no mention of the hoax.

Also, the three citations mentioned by Tokyogirl79, one of which includes a review of another book The War Was Better by Bulatović "The adventures of Gruban Malić", would bolster the article's notability.

Another notable online pages i have found in a google search:

[54] THE TYRANNY OF HUMAN RIGHTS by Kirsten Sellars of the Spectator writes of the various war crimes tribunals "war-crimes tribunals look less like paragons of justice and more like the political tools of Clinton and Blair." concludes her article talking of "The Gruban-as-rapist hoax" "It would be funny if it weren't so tragic." (I have tried to access the Spectator archive to see the actual newspaper article but it causes my computer to 'hang') Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but perhaps rename to something else such as "Gruban Malić incident". It was a well-documented joke which resulted in a judge indicting a fictional character in a United Nations court, and then a book about the prank. Many articles in Serbian. But it could be called something else, as it is notable for the incident, and not the character himself. Elgatodegato (talk) 23:02, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fechter[edit]

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

I've been looking over this page for a while. It says he won a award-but what award? And seems to just have that one credit listed also. Wgolf (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superficial article about a non-notable writer. No reference for the 'award winning' claim and the Imdb entry (the only reference) contradicts the article because it says someone else wrote the screenplay for the film The Woodsman. Neiltonks (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look again, Fechter wrote the play, there was a screenwriter on the movie, but the work is notable and it was Fetcher who created it. This may just need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

probable keep sources seem to exist [55], [56] Broadway World says he co-wrote screenplay for Woodsman. I continue tho suspect that it just needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (voted probable keep above) It really is useful to search a guy with a short page making easily verified claims before iVoting. I have only taken a brief look, but he did co-write a major motion picture and co-win a screen-writing prize for doing so.Even a quick look shows that his plays are produced with some frequency, and I can see that reviews exist. I may or may not get back to working on his page. It still needs a list of his produced work. Links to reviews. And more info about him. But I can see that all of this exists. Articles like this make me wish more writers were willing to /capable of adding sourced information to their own pages, without making inflated, grandiose claims. I'm rambling. Point is, this flys past WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (prize; writer of a well-known movie; writer of multiple plays that have had multiple productions covered that have been in multiple RS reviews over quite a few years. It is true that when User:Wgolf came to the page, there was no verification visible, and there was hype. But I don't thing this is in a grey area any more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some content based on one of E.M.Gregory's links. It could use some more solid references, but I think we've reached notability. LaMona (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others; it meets GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:04, 9 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 Local health department. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of health districts in the United States[edit]

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

List is almost entirely made up of red links, except for one article link and one link to another list. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redlinks don't determine anything one way or another. It could be that every entry merits an article, it could be that none do but there's still a point to listing them. More important, it's not even clear to me what a "health district" is; the term just redirects to the list. And the way the list is currently phrased makes it sound like this list gathers together things by shared name ("described as health districts") rather than by substance in common. So I don't know how to analyze the list without understanding that so as to judge the informational value of listing these together. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Local health department Like the myriad of titles for state departments of social services/children and families, jurisdictions for health departments vary by state; some divide into health districts, some by county, and many by city or metro region. Unfortunately outside of big city health departments none of these will probably be de-redlinked. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Local health department per Mrschimpf's comments. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, there is not a single reliable source in the article (direct links to the website and three derivatives of a press-release. No prejudice against recreation if independent reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Care-O-bot[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads like an advertisement. All refs are own refs. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but requires substantial rewrite to make it less like an ad. Notability is established by e.g. [57] and [58]. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsalvageable promo. I suggest using WP:TNT. The Banner talk 14:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify: Notable: [59][60][61][62], among many others, but the article is so promotional that it needs to be reduced to a stub and rewritten again. Esquivalience ^t 01:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only references are the subject's website and a press release. There is no reliable source.--Rpclod (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Weak Keep (see update) I was originally thinking about a weak keep (with a lot of trimming and cleanup), but on top of all mentioned problems the article contains directly copy/pasted sections from the company's website (i.e. from here; and history of version I and II is also copy/pasted from sub-pages; and probably other sections as well). Considering all mentioned issues the article should be deleted. The overall notability isn't completely clear either: a lot of the mentioned reviews merely repeat the company's own product information with a bit of own commentary. The amount of independent reliable coverage is relatively small. GermanJoe (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: after some more trimming of promotional elements and of copy/pasted history info the article could be kept. It's still not great, but the topic itself appears to be notable within our guidelines and the remaining info is not overly promotional. The current robot version is also just released, so additional independent sources and information are likely to be available soon and could be added over time. GermanJoe (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article clearly meets WP:GNG; as multiple people above have pointed out, several independent, reliable sources have covered various versions of Care-O-bot, including multiple reliable sources already in the article ([63] and [64] and additional sources found by Esquivalience). I re-wrote the paragraph that GermanJoe pointed out was copied from [65]. Much more work is needed, but I believe that this article can be salvaged. Shanata (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All references in the article which I checked are self published. I checked some of the sources presented here in this discussion and find them also to be self published. Both of the sources which TYelliot state that they are derived from press releases, which make them WP:SPS. Shanata similarly provides a Gizmag review which is also a press release derivative. Medical technology is a gimmicky sector which does a lot of SEO strange publishing, including having sketchy writers parrot reviews and press releases. These are not WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 World Judo Championships[edit]

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

This article is a hoax, because the World Judo Championships is never held in the same year as the Summer Olympics, in 2016. It does not have any information about editing this event on search pages, and also on the official website of the International Judo Federation, referring to 2016 event. After the end of 2015 World Judo Championships, the next event will only occur in 2017, in Budapest, Hungary. [66] [67] Link for consult: [68] Egtj (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Blackstone-Embassy-SPV-to-look-at-REIT-listing-in-Singapore/articleshow/16913100.cms

[2] ttp://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/private-equity-majors-bet-big-on-commercial-assets/1/195538.html

[3] ttp://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/trioz-opens-unit-at-sez/article760968.ece

[4] ttp://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/blackstone-embassy-jv-shelves-2-bn-reit-listing-115042400042_1.html

[5] ttp://www.livemint.com/Companies/TuDKe0Rb2I8flYbJNNQoEI/Embassy-Blackstone-to-buy-leased-office-asset-for-680-cr.html

[6] ttp://www.livemint.com/Companies/PkZLcm7JqQhHsdQyQ448IO/Realty-firms-funds-to-wait-and-watch-trajectory-of-REIT-lis.html

[7] ttp://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/blackstone-embassy-targets-rs-5k-cr-reit-listing-in-fy16/29740/

[8] ttp://www.dealcurry.com/20140825-Blackstone-May-Pick-Up-Stake-In-Embassy-Services.htm

[9] "Dot kiwi domain name reservations set to begin". TVNZ.

[10] "Trademark holders have a month to get .kiwi domain names". scoop.co.nz.

[11] "Kiwi domain is almost ready to join the dots". Stuff.

[12] Sathya Mithra Ashok. "All Kiwis can apply for a .kiwi domain name now". Computerworld New Zealand.

[13] "Thousands switch to .kiwi domain". Stuff. 14 May 2014.

[14] James Henderson. "12K and counting as Dot Kiwi captures NZ imagination". Computerworld New Zealand.

[15] "Dot Kiwi Celebrates First Anniversary". scoop.co.nz.

[16] "Real estate tops .kiwi domain". Stuff.

[17] "Dot Kiwi fails to knock out .kiwi.nz". Stuff.

[18] "NZ web users may get .kiwi domain". The New Zealand Herald.

[19] James Henderson. ""Watershed day" as NZ domain name game hots up". Computerworld New Zealand.

[TVNZ_2014-20] "Dot Kiwi domain names in hot demand". TVNZ. May 15, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[Field_2013-21] Field, Tony (December 2, 2013). "Dot kiwi enters internet domain names". 3 News. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[Scoop_News_2014-22] ".kiwi domain names go live after two years of planning". Scoop News. March 18, 2014. Retrieved May 5, 2015.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]