Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 May	26 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 moved to draft space . DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St Francis Court[edit]

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

A16 story apartment building in the UK is not notable; it' s not even the tallest one in this particular city,. The only 3rd party sources are about a non-fatal fire that took place there--that's local news, and was covered by the local papers. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: There is a discussion at the Teahouse where an editor wishes this to be the outcome of this discussion to give them time to assert notability and provide full referencing. I see that approach as wholly congruent with our desire to improve the encyclopaedia and to encourage new editors. There is always the potential that this is not actually notable, but that can be decided in a far more relaxed atmosphere than at WP:AFD Fiddle Faddle
Note to Nominator DGG I see you agree elsewhere that this move to draft: is acceptable. The editor has complicated the deletion process by making that move already. Please will you consider how best to close this deletion discussion since there are only two participants and the solution seems to be suitable. Fiddle Faddle 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global.asax[edit]

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

As discussed on Talk, not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTMANUAL. Just isn't an encyclopedic article. crh23 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any indication that the topic is notable. Even if it were, as crh23 says this is written totally unencyclopedically and WP:STARTOVER applies. Lagrange 613 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. Belongs at RFD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me in the Pale Moonlight[edit]

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

The section this article redirects to doesn't exist anymore. The article doesn't mention unreleased songs anymore. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The redirect serves a purpose. If someone searches for this song, at least they will be redirect to the artist. What harm is this to Wikipedia? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I think it should be redirected to Del Rey's article. I guess it doesn't cause any harm to Wikipedia, but I also don't see any purpose in it. Are we going to create redirects for every unreleased song of hers just in case someone searches it? If anything, the redirect is confusing, in my opinion. They know the song is by Lana Del Rey, so it's not like being redirected to her article is going to help them since the song isn't mentioned there. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, and pretty much constitutes a useless redirect to an article that doesn't mention it. crh23 (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What's this doing here instead of at RfD? Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'd never heard of RfD before. That's why I listed it here. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axl Rose Husband[edit]

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

The section this article redirects to doesn't exist anymore. The article doesn't mention unreleased songs anymore. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unneeded page with outdated redirects. It is of no value or notability. Quis separabit? 01:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is pointless now Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RaceConflicts[edit]

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

No indication of notability and I can't find any sources from an internet search. Sam Walton (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The1337gamer (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --☣Anar chyte☣ 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Cannot find any coverage from reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Davies (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer, their highest level of senior football is Conference (Tier 5). As a result, they fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, as I told you on the page talk, Fleetwood Town FC are in the Football League and he was playing for them only last year. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilRichardsGFF (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — PhilRichardsGFF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I put this up before you wrote on the talkpage. Also, you've added random numbers of appearances without a reliable source, whereas the only source I can find, [1], says he's never played a first-team game for Fleetwood. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that several other Lincoln City players have Wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_City_F.C.#First_team - I think you're being a bit of a jobs worth here to be honest.

There are plenty of sources proving beyond doubt the validity and existence of the player:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31757407

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26527586 PhilRichardsGFF (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And those sources indicate that he hasn't played above the seventh tier of English football...Northern Premier League is the only league I see him getting caps in per those sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but all of them have played in a fully-professional league, whereas the evidence suggests Davies hasn't (unless there is a reliable source that says he made a first-team appearance for Fleetwood). Therefore they pass WP:NFOOTY, and he doesn't. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely a good argument. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhilRichardsGFF you wrote above 'I think you're being a bit of a jobs worth here to be honest' - what an offensive and ludicrous attack on Joseph2302. People wouldn't have to spend their time on these matters if you weren't on Wikipedia unashamedly promoting the commercial interests of your company and its clients. AusLondonder (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilRichardsGFF: Considering you initially made this article about the wrong player, I think it's very strange that you seem to think I'm not doing things correctly. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Not an expert on football but seems to fail WP:NFOOTY. While not relevant to deletion the article has been created for commercial purposes, anyway by an editor with a WP:COI. First version was sickeningly promotional and was mixed-up with another 'client'. Wondering if creator should be reported to ANI for this behaviour. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and in my opinion fails GNG as well. Best to just nuke it given very obvious COI and let some time pass, allow someone unconnected to create the article. It's not like there's a shortage of established editors who create footballer bios anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeRangeFrog: I basically rewrote it all already, so the COI isn't a reason to nuke. Basically, they wrote a semi-promotional article about the wrong player, and then added random numbers of appearances to the infobox, so I rewrote most of it, according to actual sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more information and several more sources to the article with inline citations so now there are all these sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. With all of these sources that have significant coverage of Tom Davies the article passes WP:GNG, the subject is notable, and therefore should be retained at Wikipedia. מען טאָר ניט עסן די חלה פֿאַר דער המוציא (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is routine sports journalism that does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Everything noted above is routine and mainly local sports journalism which does not count towards GNG. A vary low-level, semi-professional at best journeyman footballer. Fenix down (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - never played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:NFOOTY, and no evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:GNG. Additional sources provided above are simply to stats databases and very cursory news announcements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Chrislk02 per CSD A9 (non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Fun In Games[edit]

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

A mixtape from an artist that doesn't have a wikipedia article. The mixtape itself is not yet released, and unsurprisingly, there's no coverage in reliable sources. The source given in the article is a dead link. Tagged for a speedy deletion, it was contested by an IP editor. Whpq (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A9. —teb728 t c 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Numerous articles about this company have been created under half a dozen different names. I will try to salt them all. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec telemarketing[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:COATRACK. In fact, this is perhaps the most interesting case of COAT I've seen in quite some time. In an effort to save this previously speedied article, User:Nopirosyadi has loaded it with a great many references about the Canadian telemarketing industry, its rules, etc. But that's not what the article is about-- as evidenced by its promotional lead and its external link to (his?) firm -- and nothing in the article actually confers notability 'on "Quebec Telemarketing." Other editors may feel the article is salvageable if repurposed as about the Canadian telemarketing industry. I have no interest in doing so, as I believe the editor's work in the telemarketing sphere is a case of WP:NOT HERE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shawni just lets you know that quebec telemarketing is pure telemarketing development in Quebec and there is no promotion text in it. I do not work in telemarketing company but i am interested to research telemarketing development in several countries as follows; quebec, Canada, France, USA, UK, Belgium, Indonesia, Netherland, Arab Saudi, etc. i believe my content will save from deletion. i have been researched from great of references on the internet that describe each telemarketing development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopirosyadi (talk • contribs) 03:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does it begin "Quebec telemarketing is a Telemarketing company business in Quebec..." and end with an external link to the non-notable http://quebectelemarketing.com/en/ ? Why does it promote its CEO, Frederick Giguere, ad nauseum in its unreliable sources? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shawn i improve this contents by eliminate external links and unreliable references. hope it meet wiki policy save from deletion page. thanks

It's still a WP:COATRACK for Quebec Telemarketing, still rife with references to unreliable sources to promote this non-notable company. You've pruned a few things but you haven't addressed the core problem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And an IP has come along and re-added the spam link to the company site. Because, after all, business is business. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No "references" worth keeping. Padding may work in high school, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Almost all references are entirely irrelevant, none make it pass WP:CORP. crh23 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A probably sockpuppet account has come along and created Montrealtelemarketing, which the official site reveals to be the same company. Once again, nothing in this clone article, no reference, confers any notability on the company itself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, WP:ADMASQ- should have been speedied on 10 May when I put it up as a G11. So promotional, company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and non-notable. PamD 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Quebec telemarketing (entreprise) and the multi-speedily-deleted Quebectelemarketing. Salting needed? PamD 07:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riky Ash[edit]

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

Ash has had a good career, but I don't see that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I've added a couple of external links to the article, but I don't think it puts it over the bar. Clearly created by Ash himself also. Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC~~. Comment – Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Stuntman Riky wants to teach you how to live with confidence". granthamjournal.co.uk.
^ "Riky Ash stunt man co-ordinates stunts for Dr Who Live - Nottingham Post". Nottingham Post.
^ "Getting To Know: Stuntman Riky Ash". Business Matters.
^ "VIDEO: Riky is kung-fu fighting, record-breaking stuntman". granthamjournal.co.uk.

Upon consideration, modifying my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking sufficient sources: it's all Lincolnshire/Nottinghamshire local press except from the Business Matters interview, which doesn't count as a reliable source (because it's an interview). Purely local press isn't normally considered sufficient for notability. Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT, WP:NACTOR or WP:AUTHOR. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some local press doesn;t really make for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Mokadim[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP with no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been speedy deleted twice already. The person isn't notable, and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Case of WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, thanks for letting me know. I never noticed this but even if I do, I won't really want to speedy it because because A7 does not applies to articles with claim of significance even if the claim is unsupported by reliable sources. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-and yes the article was deleted a couple times in the past few days. So delete per nom. Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for total lack of sources or any claim to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1377 Roberbauxa[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Included in a 22-asteroid lightcurve study [9] and mentioned in an early study of asteroid families [10], but not enough individual attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1416 Renauxa[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain: It shows up in several papers, but some of them I couldn't access because they're behind a pay wall. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't see a lot of literature on this body but what there is makes it seem somewhat unusual. It was one of the first ten identified K-type asteroids [11]. It is also mentioned several times in a mineralogical analysis of 30 asteroids in the Eos family, more prominently than many other objects in the study (approximately 1/2 page of text+figures specifically about this one) [12]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons mentioned above. -- Kheider (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1420 Radcliffe[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The subject of a 1954 orbital study by Torroja, and not much else. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1624 Rabe[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Apparently it had a close encounter with 65 Cybele in 1965 that could be useful in determining the mass of Cybele [13] [14]. I couldn't find much more than that, and that seems to be more of interest for Cybele than for this one. So I don't think there's enough to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). Most of the Keep !votes are all WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:ILIKEIT which as we know are useless here, Overall consensus is to redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yekaterina Petrovna Zamolodchikova[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)

Content forking from RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) no references, the outcome of some fancruft for a fan favorite on a reality TV show. Would also support a redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). Azealia911 _talk 20:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) without prejudice. As it stands right now, Katya isn't that much more notable than any of the other contestants from this season. Depending on the outcome of the finale, his time on the show and the press he's done from it plus his webseries plus a Miss Congeniality title (?) would likely be enough to sustain an article. hinnk (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hinnk, it's almost certain that he wins Miss Congeniality, I've seen fan twitter reactions from people at the filming (not exactly the most reliable source I know), but they all seem to say that he's awarded the title, as they don't film variations of the winner of Miss Congeniality as they do with the top three and winner of the competition. Even with that being said, still not notable at this time. I support you proposition to redirect. Azealia911 _talk 21:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd heard that as well. Unless I'm misinterpreting the AfD guidelines, you can withdraw the nomination and redirect it as long as nobody has supported deleting it. (Though if that's going to be contentious, it may be easiest to leave this open rather than trying to rehash the issue on the talk page?) hinnk (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave this open, the creator of the article removed the notice I placed on their talk page to tell him about this, however I think they'd revert my redirect without explanation if I did what you suggested, I know that's very cynical of me to assume bad faith, but they've left no edit summaries as of yet, such as this edit, so yeah, I think I'll see what comes of this. But can I ask, if you support a redirect, why are you expanding the article? I did some housecleaning of it, but you're adding large chunks of text... Azealia911 _talk 21:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no prejudice toward recreating the article later, it's just convenient to lay it out now and maybe keep a userfied draft. hinnk (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). The individual doesn't have the notability to warrant a separate article. Her web series/YouTube videos also have pretty small views compared to other articles created for Internet and YouTube personalities. There's just not enough information. Burnberrytree (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). Her popular web series makes it a real 50/50 to me, but I don't know if she's quite notable enough outside of the show to warrant her own page. In the event that the page is kept, I'd suggest renaming it to Katya Zamolodchikova. She's not really referred to as Yekaterina Petrovna - all her social media and club appearances etc refer to her as Katya Zamolodchikova or simply Katya. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I'd actually suggest renaming the page to simply "Katya (drag queen)" which already has a page, but it's a redirect to the season 7 article, and wasn't sure of all the technicals on how to move a page to a pre-existing page. Azealia911 _talk 21:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a moot point if there's consensus to redirect, but WP:MONONYM recommends using Katya Zamolodchikova: "don't use a first name (even if unambiguous) for an article title if the last name is known and fairly often used." Most of the sources out there mention the last name. hinnk (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, Katya Zamolodchikova would be the best bet, but certainly not Yekaterina Petrovna Zamolodchikova. Azealia911 _talk 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save Page. A quick perusal of the show's subreddit and the queen's own tumblr page are enough evidence that this is a well known figure. Keep the article, as her likely crowning of Miss Congeniality will keep social media presence bolstered through the next couple of years. I don't see any reason as to why this page would be removed, given the precedence of previous RPDR drag queens having pages like this during their own seasons with far less content. Hippocratic911 — Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Jgorman423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Being a well known figure is one thing, but having the content to back it up is another, and at the moment, the page looks like it won't grow any further, other than adding the fact that they were awarded Miss Congeniality, and referencing the filmography section. Other contestants with their own pages either have extensive filmography's (Willam, Latrice Royale) or a significant discography (Adore Delano, Manila Luzon, Sharon Needles) or simply garnered media coverage in other ways (like Carmen Carrera being a pivotal trans model) I'm afraid simply being well known on Reddit and having a generous number of twitter/tumblr followers isn't enough to warrant an independent article. Azealia911 _talk 11:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment sums up why the page shouldn't be kept: being famous on the "subreddit" of a show is insufficient for a Wikipedia page. And as discussed above, the list of queens that have a page is another clear indication that this one is undue. As far as I can tell, even Raja, one of the more successful and appreciated past winners, does not have a page.DanielN333 — DanielN333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: the article about Raja is at Sutan Amrull because he also uses his real name professionally. hinnk (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I had looked but had not seen it. I just went through the seasons to see how many contestants from each had Wiki pages. The numbers from Season 2 onward are: 8, 7, 4, 5, 4. That suggests to me that as the drag queens become more famous as time goes by and as they amass more post-show credits, they get added to Wikipedia. I think that what differentiates Katya from the other queens at this moment is popularity among the show's fan and not notoriety. That's commendable, and will likely mean she does more things that will get her noticed soon, but that's not what this discussion is.DanielN333

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. Another of the season 7 contestants will have an article by this next week, because winning is a pretty good case for notability. All but one of the All Stars contestants have articles, since they have credits on more than one show. And as you said, the more stuff the current batch does outside the show the more articles we'll have. hinnk (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She does have a popular web series that continues to grow. She is not just a drag queen famous among the 'subreddit" and on tumblr, she is doing work outside of the show that is getting attention. She has also stated that she will continue to write and further her web series career, which should not downplay what she has already achieved with her web series. There are drag queens from past seasons who have their own separate page that are on equal footing with Katya in regards to work done outside of the show. I am sure there will be more material added to her page as time goes by so it it is important to keep her page. Her web series along with other contributions like winning Miss Congeniality should be enough to guarantee her a separate page. Web series are creative work done outside of the show, such as filmographies.

I also just joined Wikipedia, but my contribution does not come from that reddit thread.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeysuckle333 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Honeysuckle333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Most of your points fail per WP:Other stuff exists, being a fan favorite or winning Miss Congeniality certainly aren't reasons to keep a page, just like producing further episodes to a web series isn't a viable reason. If there's more added in due time then we can always reconsider re-creating the page, but until the page exceeds a small section on his life and an equally small, unsourced filmography section, redirection seems the best route. Azealia911 _talk 18:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add with the addition of some minor you made changes to your point, that having a web series, no matter how successful, does not automatically warrant a separate page, other drag queens have successful web series', but don't have wiki pages because there's not enough content backed up with reliable sources. I fully support the page, but not in it's current state, it needs a lot more content with reliable sourced to back it up. Azealia911 _talk 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Contributors to this discussion may have possibly originated from a reddit thread, which caught wind of the discussion, one user boldy writing "save Katya's Wikipedia page!" based on the fact that now two editors in this discussion have only made contributions to this page alone while their accounts have been active. Azealia911 _talk 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure to be welcoming of new users joining this discussion. Azealia911, responding to all of the comments here might be escalating things a bit. The closing admin can sort out the merits of all the points being raised.

To all of the new members, I might suggest you check out the general notability guideline here. When we talk about Katya's work so far, it's helpful to do so in the context of reliable, independent sources that we could use. hinnk (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was able to find some questionably reliable sources in boston.com's your town section but this is not sufficient for the significant reliable coverage expected of a BLP. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) seems like the best target for a redirect, but I would be open to other targets if they are suggested. I would also like to point out to the canvassed/spa editors here that the nominator is one of the best contributors to RuPaul's Drag Race content on Wikipedia and has worked significantly on articles such as Adore Delano. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here but would like to add some things in case we do save her page. Katya was a major contributor (as in found it based on the source below) to a show and called it "Perestroika" in the Boston’s Theatre District for seven years and I think we can delve more into that since she actually constructed that whole show. Her page has like only one sentence but maybe we can add more. 1 2 3 Also, in the case of the web series, maybe more content can be written about them as in what she talked about in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henryshowtunes (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is a very popular Drag Queen. One of the standouts of the new season. She has a huge internet following that literally calls her "mom". Most of you probably don't watch the show so you wouldn't know how popular she is. HesioneHushabye (talk)

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Raisig[edit]

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

Wedding photographer (auto) bio. Essentially a padded resume, claims to notability are not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE; the photo in the New York Times only accompanies an article about a wedding, and the Wedding Photojournalist Association's contest lists him as coming in at 11th place. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting a phot in the NYT is not enough to be notable. If he had been their photographer for celeb weddings for several years it might be a different story. If he had been photo for lots of celebrities it might be different. Coming in 11th in any contest rarely makes one notable, coming in 11th in a quaterly contest seems to almost say the individual is below average, definately nothing to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G11 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Deluca Tuddenham[edit]

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

I feel that this article is self-promotional, and also does not meet the standards for notability.

Shortcut

WP:A7

Shortcut

WP:SOAP

Shortcut

WP:INDISCRIMINATE

Rabbitflyer (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete yes this page is super-promotional, which is the exact reason why it should have been speedy deleted. Cannot see why a new user has decided to put this up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I am being troublesome, but the policy page said that both speedy and prod should be used when no objections to the deletion are raised, and objections were raised by one user other than the creator of the article. I am a bit of a newb, so please correct me if my interpretation of this policy is incorrect. Thanks, Rabbitflyer (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Nothing even vaguely close to notability; the inadequate best is his music charting in Miami. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also note that there seems to be sock-puppetry afoot. User:Expensivenews created and edited the page, then User:ProfessionalEditorOfWikipedia appeared on May 25 to contest the speedy delete. LaMona (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vergi Rodriguez[edit]

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

Article is about a singer, dancer, choreographer, actress that lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article appears to be created by an agency related to the subject, and the accomplishments have been puffed up along with reference bombing. For example, the lead paragraph makes the claim for acting in the movie The Hot Chick which is technically true but the role is minor as one of four actors credited with being a "Palace Girl" according to IMDB. The references are numerous but consist of unreliable sources. My own searches turned up this, but that is not substantial, and is only one source. Whpq (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former background dancer, has now put out a couple of songs on iTunes, although no one seems to have downloaded them. Article refs are side mentions or unreliable. Nothing better to be found in web searches. There is no substantial coverage from independent reliable sources to evidence notability. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1424 Sundmania[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a relatively large 71km member of the main-belt, I think it should be kept as it exceeds WP:Run-of-the-mill. -- Kheider (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is unusually large, but the only actual sources I found were one lightcurve study [15] and a report from a satellite observatory where its data was literally one line in a three-page table of other asteroids [16]. I don't think that's enough sourcing to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP. I have to concur with David Eppstein; at present this object does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. There haven't been enough studies made to build an article of decent length. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If he eventually meets WP:NFOOTBALL, the article can be recreated. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keasel Broome[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested based on speculation as to future international appearances, which is never grounds for notability. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for a senior national team, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Mikemor92 has misrepresented the prod removal as "based on speculation as to future international appearances" to sound like this was used as a claim of notability. It wasn't. The Prod was removed with the comment "given his recent call-up by Barbados national football team perhaps best to see how that plays out before going to AFD". It's complete waste of everyone's time to be going through this process while the player is attending a national team camp that contains two international fixtures. There was WP:NOHARM and WP:NORUSH in showing some WP:COMMONSENSE and wait a few days to see what happens before starting the deletion process. Deleting an article that might well (or probably not given he's a keeper) be recreated within days creates and end-product that is erratic and unprofessional. Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that this indicates via squad number that he is the fourth choice keeper for his club, WP:TOOSOON would seem more applicable. Jimmy Maurer is clearly the current first choice keeper, with Kyle Zobeck filling in as reserve. The international game is not for another two weeks and there is no indication that a player who has only made a handful of appearances over the last few years in the fourth tier of US soccer is going to suddenly walk into the first team for a senior international match, particularly as reports such as this indicate he has merely been called up to a training camp and has not yet been named in an official squad, let alone played. The most important point is the we don't simply create articles on people who might become notable at some point in the future. If he plays then the article can be restored, which I will be happy to do personally. Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't opine on his future with his club for the very reasons you state; the lot of a second-string keeper is poor, let alone the 4th-string! That still doesn't mean though that this nomination doesn't fail WP:NOHARM, WP:NORUSH, and WP:COMMONSENSE, in addition to the misleading comments by User:Mikemor92. If dropped from camp, the article could then have gone to AFD - no harm, no foul. Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:NOHARM? Because that's giving us another reason why this article should be deleted. – Michael (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think you need to step back and really read the various essays / guidelines you are citing for the following reasons:

WP:NOHARM is a section in an essay dealing with arguments to AVOID in AfDs! I'm at a loss as to why you think citing it strengthens your case.
WP:NORUSH states specifically as its first point that there is no rush to create articles. This speaks directly to the point made in numerous AfDs where you vote keep that we simply do not create articles in anticipation of potential notability. The second point concerning there being no need to rush to delete clearly concerns the quality of articles rather than notability. Neither of these sections have any bearing on whether we should or should not keep an article where it is a clear fact that the person currently fulfills no notability essays or guidelines.
WP:COMMONSENSE contains the key phrase Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. I do not see how an article on an individual who satisfies no notability guidelines could be considered a "good contribution".

Rather than just slinging a few essay / guideline links about because their titles sound like they inherently support a keep vote, it would be more useful for you to outline specifically why they do.

Why do you think they support a keep vote? I don't think they do. They support be a sensible person and don't AFD the article for a few days ... they don't support a keep once some over-zealous black-and-white editor has started us unnecessarily down this path. Nfitz (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Parker[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 19:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find a thing about this guy, unless he also wrestles for a high school in Pennsylvania [17]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - muddling the search is that there are two Brandon Parker wrestlers, with a total of 77 news results. However, this particular Parker wrestled for Championship Wrestling from Hollywood from 2010-2012, which is a TV show, and which does have coverage in sources. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are WP:ROUTINE match results, not significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nikki♥311 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stiller and Meara. As she's not mentioned on Ben Stiller, redirecting to her parents' article seems to make more sense. Ged UK 13:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Stiller[edit]

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

Article has been re-created in the wake of the death of Anne Meara. Was just deleted in April 2015 for not meeting general notability guidelines See previous deletion discussion here [18]. Result was delete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore original version - I supported keeping it the first time and still do. IMO it doesn't matter if she gets more coverage and press because of her family; she still gets the coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails the GNG because there is no coverage in reliable sources about her. None of her film or TV appearances is particularly important; in fact they're mostly bit roles in her brother's or father's projects. Notability isn't inherited either. Calidum T|C 19:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG, It's sad her mother's died but it doesn't mean she gets a free pass to an article because of that, Failed GNG the first time and unfortunately does now. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Stiller - Indeed, she has never gotten much independent notability although she's had her sporadic roles in TV shows and here but it would save the article rather than delete and have it open for future use. SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to keep an article "open" that has no content and a non-notable individual as the article subject? Doing so is the antithesis of Wikipedia's purpose let alone the purpose of an encyclopedia. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Winkelvi: I agree but because moving is an alternative to deletion and this is a searchable term so it will take it to the most relevant article, Ben Stiller (with whom she has starred in his projects). SwisterTwister talk 21:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the earlier real article and then delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; she still isn't covered enough in reliable sources to meet GNG, and notability is not inherited. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not funny, my brother died that way —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Is that supposed to be a joke, Wikimandia? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to taste. Nothing has increased her notability in the whole month since she was last deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – I agree with Мандичка (above). I created this article a day or so ago. When I read the biography of Anne Meara, I was quite surprised to see that Amy Stiller did not have her own article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are 1) Amy isn't particularly noted for much (if anything) on her own, 2) she is only mentioned briefly in reliable sources Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little coverage in reliable sources. Not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have expanded article a bit but it can still be expanded. I added what I think are reliable sources. Weak keep. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G4 and WP:SNOW. I don't know why we're even having a discussion here. There was a clear consensus for a delete just a little over a month ago. No need to have it again. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Stiller - Does not meet the notability guidelines due to her brothers relation which drives the media crazy enough to ignore her own decades long film career. It is a extremely valid search item though and if it was redirected originally would've saved this from happening. It's not salt ready all because someone read in her mothers obit about her long film career and wondered why there was not a blue link. Not at all disruptive re-creation.. GuzzyG (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes GNG. Any actress with as many film/tv credits (37) as she has is notable, per her IMBD page [19] HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not reliable, and notability isn't solely determined by number of credits. Additionally, no reliable sources give her enough coverage to meet GNG. The closest I can find is PlayBill, which has only a medium amount at most. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just for clarity's sake, HesioneHushabye, imdb isn't reliable because it's very similar to Wikipedia. Average-joe folks like us edit the site and its content is possible to change (wrong or right) frequently. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::IMBD is reliable when determining someone in the film/television profession's credits. Browsing her IMBD page, Amy Stiller has been in many big movies. I've seen articles created for actresses with only 1-5 credits. She has 37. HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is long-standing consensus that it isn't. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snuggums is correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, it is. But if you need more proof, check out her website here [20], and her resume here [21] quite an accomplished performer! HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability is not solely determined by how many credits one has. Her own website is reliable for credits, but doesn't count towards WP:Notability; we need reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Using one's own site is basically just self-promotion. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Neither work for our purposes. Her website is a primary source and imdb is unreliable. Doing the research at both would be a form of synthesis, creating an original research situation. That leaves us with more unreliable sourcing. Which is the main problem with this article: unreliable sources = not really anything that supports her notability = not meeting WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your assertion she isn't notable is that you are claiming she's never been in a film or on a TV show, which is easily proven false. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How did you arrive at the conclusion we said she's never been in a film or on TV? We are talking about notability. Being in films and TV doesn't guarantee meeting GNG. I've been in films and on TV numerous times; I don't meet notability guidelines and neither do a number of my friends who have also been in films and on TV. It's not about credits, it's about sufficient coverage establishing notability. Perhaps you need to review what GNG is about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what notability is about, perhaps you should read the fine print. It states on the page Notability does not always depend on the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online.[22]. It also states that an actor is notable if they have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."[23] which she clearly has. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting one very important factor: that coverage regarding such credits needs to come from a reliable source in order for said notability to be established. Where are the reliable, secondary, unbiased sources? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines state "While meeting the criteria of the General notability guidelines allows a presumption of notability, it is also seen that Wikipedia:Notability (paragraph 2) specifically instructs that a topic can also be considered notable, even failing the GNG, if it otherwise meets the criteria outlined in one or the more subject specific guidelines". [24].

In short, for an actor, it's presumed that she has performed in film, television, and stage. Links like this [25] and this [26] confirm she has played roles in professional stage productions, which means she meets notability guidelines for Entertainers [27]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try asking the question again: where are the reliable sources? If there aren't any, you don't have an article that meets GNG or BLP guidelines. It's quite simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try posting links for Winkelvi again: [28], [29], [30], [31]. It's quite simple. She meets guidelines for Notability for Entertainers. [32]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two playbills, an agency website and a self published website are ALL primary sources. Who do you think writes the content for playbills? (I'll give you a hint: it's not unbiased individuals who write for reliable sources where there is journalistic oversight). Who do you think writes the content for agency websites and personal websites? (another hint: it's not unbiased individuals who write for reliable sources where there is journalistic oversight). But, insist on living in the world of WP:IDHT if you must. You certainly seem happy there. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that using multiple articles from the same publication only counts as one source giving coverage. One reliable secondary source alone isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because once again you are both claiming she has never been involved in professional films, television shows, or stage productions, because if she had, she would meet [33]. Playbill is a professional website. Please review guidelines for notability once again Notability does not always depend on the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online.[34]. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) No, neither of us ever claimed "she has never been involved in professional films, television shows, or stage productions". What we said is that being involved in such productions does not automatically equate to notability. We need reliable secondary sources discussing Amy herself to establish notability per GNG, not just listings of her roles. I'm aware that Playbill is reliable, but it is not on its own enough to show notability. Also, while the page you linked is an essay, the GNG is an official guideline. Essays can be insightful, but guidelines and policies carry more weight. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be aware of this Wikipedia guideline. WP:ENT and WP:GNG are not mutually exclusive. She clearly meets WP:ENT. The sources you are claiming to need to prove notability are not needed for an actor. Please refer to this guideline "Actors meet Merit of Inclusion through meeting WP:ENT, through an allowable and reasonable presumption that sources exist somewhere" HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stiller and Meara. Quis separabit? 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stiller and Meara or Ben Stiller: Just because a performer has 37 credits does not automatically warrant notability. If this article is to remain on its own, there has to been more research, more thoughtful prose, and more resources (outside of filmography or credits whether reliable or not) within the article.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either of the targets mentioned above. No evidence of independent notability. I'm also going to create an AfD for Amy Stiller's Breast -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Passes the notability test. No reason to not have an article. JOJ ^Hutton 21:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comlife Investments[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable company. The only references are this company's inclusion on several very long lists of possibly shady investment firms. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most sources appear to be statements from regulators AusLondonder (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unnotable article. It falls short of WP:ORGDEPTH and based on WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia is not for promotion or regulatory remarks. --98.124.175.60 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how this possibly passes WP:CORP. If the "events" are notable perhaps an article could be written about them under another title, but for now the company itself does not seem notable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only third-party sources seem to be two brief statements from regulators and an article which explicitly draws on Wikipedia. None of this goes into much depth and should really be excluded under WP:ILLCON anyway. Hut 8.5 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. Keeping the article gives undue weight to a company which seems to only have achieved third party notability in brief statements indicating its poor conduct. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable BMK (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and the company's illegal conduct is also non-notable. Miniapolis 23:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all sources appear to be primary. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As corporation fails WP:Notability, doesn't even seem to be notable for mentions of company's bad conduct. Shearonink (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we have a snowball here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Bodanis[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as problematic for a long time and never fixed. It appears to be largely autobiographical, and the sole cited source is a PR biography, which is not independent. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ Keep - based on reviews found by Eppstein. I can't find enough about him to meet notability for an author. I did find one Kirkus review, but that only indicates that the book was published and promoted. There is a WP article for his book Passionate_Minds but the only reference to that is the book itself. I note also that his "official website" is a 404. However, he has written more books than are listed here, and they appear to be widely held in libraries (that is >2K libraries, which is a small number but not tiny). LaMona (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found multiple mainstream media reviews of his books [35] [36] [37] [38] [39], an interview on Australian television [40] and an award for one of those books from the Royal Society [41]. As such I think he has a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. The article should be revised to include these third party sources; currently its sourcing is weak, but that can be improved. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any coverage of the subject himself? Guy (Help!) 18:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interview [42] has information about him in the textual description, although not a lot. I don't read anything at WP:AUTHOR that requires biographical information in addition to information about the author's works. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These subject-specific guidelines are a plague - many of them imply that fulfilling certain criteria guarantees inclusion, but in reality they only indicate people who are likely to be notable, but in the end Wikipedia policy requires that there are non-trivial reliable independent sources about the article subject. It's coverage in reliable independent sources that confers notability, per Wikipedia's policies. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Requiring information about the personal life of the author is seriously misguided. If someone is known for writing books, then in-depth sources about those books provide notbability for that subject, just as if someone is known as an Olympic athlete then in-depth sources about their athletic achievements provide notability. In neither case do we require People magazine exposes about their love life. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. no information about the individual; possible hoax, as the web pages cited to not match the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anandu Das (dancer)[edit]

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

The contents is the same as Lillian Covillo except for the very beginning. Other versions of the page appear to be similarly copied from various pages. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 15:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think you should tag as speedy delete. I can't find a single thing about Anandu Das and outside of the lede, the text of this article is wholly about other people. (And strange title considering there is no Anandu Das.) —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Essentially an advertisement for his plastic surgery practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samieh Rizk[edit]

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

Still fails WP:BIO and three years on from two other AFDs there are no new sources providing in-depth and independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 13:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state-sponsored terrorism[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANT and WP:POVFORK already fully covered in United States and state terrorism and also in even minor points are covered inCovert United States foreign regime change actions Praguegirl (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it's just a POV content fork from United States and state terrorism. If there's anything useful then I guess a merge would be okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: How is a POV fork? Could you please elaborate a little more? Rupert loup (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The pages are distinct. United States and State terrorism refers to US involvement with so-called state-terrorism; the use of torture, murder, and so forth by national governments. The page being nominated here is about US support to paramilitary groups that have committed terrorist activities, as labelled by reliable sources. There are plenty of RS covering this topic; take these, for example; ^[1]^[2] Also, please note that the nominator is an SPA with exactly four edits, who for reasons best known to themselves changed the urls in the article such that they stopped working. I think this is ready for a speedy close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (2010). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 397–414.
^ Feldmann, Andreas E.; Maiju Perälä (July 2004). "Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America". Latin American Politics and Society. 46 (2): 101–132. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2004.tb00277.x.

Strong Keep - I see how these are separate and distinct. I would be against merging because this would cause confusion, and there is sufficient content for both articles to stand alone. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - State terrorism and Terrorism are two different subjects. Like said above the article has enough content and I don't see that is written in a POV manner or has POV sources so I opposed to the deletion. Rupert loup (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This is POV fork of United States and state terrorism. I do not know, maybe the latter article should be deleted (and this one kept) or they should be merged, however having them both is definitely too much. Speaking on the essence of this, yes, the US have supported a number of rebel groups (including right now), some of which can be arguably called "terrorist groups", however I do not see them on this page. For example, the operations in the Latin America were very much support of ordinary rebels and other political forces, which were not described as "terrorist groups" by majority of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that the U.S. has supported terrorists. This quote is on United States and State terrorism article but should also be on state-sponsored terrorism: William Odom, President Reagan's National Security Agency Director: "As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world." —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes:@Wikimandia:The very CIA admitted that they supported terrorists and made violations of human rights and there are declassified documents[43][44][45] that prove this. It cannot be a POV fork because it hasn't other point of view of the same subject, they have totally different subjects. As I said before terrorism and state terrorism are not the same thing, nor the international community nor wikipedia consider that are the same, that's why they are separate in two differents articles. Rupert loup (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and because the terms are nearly identical, people not familiar with them may find them confusing if they are merged. But those are the terms they use so we're stuck with them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that the people arguing for deletion have not read the source material. There are sources aplenty that talk about US support for terrorists; very few, if any, discuss state terror. The sources discussing state terrorism are Chomsky, Herman, and so forth; very different bunch. The article does not cover any old rebel group, but groups/individuals whose actions have been called terrorism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You people probably misunderstood what I am saying. Yes, I think that "USA and state terrorism" is a legitimate subject. Yes, I think there are multiple RS about this. However, we should not have two pages on essentially the same subject. This is WP:POV fork - I agree with nominator. Hence my "delete" or "merge". And I must admit that I am generally an WP:Inclusionist - just voted to keep another page [46], but it was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no misunderstanding. The source material makes it clear that the subjects are different; the sources used in the article nominated here make no mention of state terrorism, and refer to an entirely different set of events than the other article. The sources themselves are different. If you had read them, you would know this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @My very best wishes: could you please take this serious and read the articles, the sources and what we are saying. Many people contributed with the article and I think that is a total disrespect to us that you're commenting about the deletion of an article without even care about what is the subject or what the other people said about it. We already prove that is not the same subject and citing a policy is not merit for deletion WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position you should explain why the two articles are about the same subject and how is a POV fork, because just agreeging with the nominator is not a good reason WP:PERNOM. Rupert loup (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith discussion does not mean disrespect to anyone. Quite the opposite. However, this is not about respect or disrespect, but about improving encyclopedia. We have a lot of POV and promotional content that should be deleted. Yes, I realize that in many subject areas a majority of contributors have significant POV. This is one of the reasons WP will never be a reliable information resource.My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we bring it back to earth a little here?

My very best wishes, you have not explained how these topics are the same when the sources are different, and they describe different events. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. Let's look at page United States and state terrorism. It tells (from quoted sources) that "the US organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror" and below that USA "backed state terrorism in client states". This is precisely what "state-sponsored" terrorism means ("provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations across the world" in this page). Hence the both pages are essentially on the same subject. Please "merge" or "delete" one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes little sense. "a neo-colonial system of client states, cooperating with local elites to rule through terror" is very different from state-sponsored terror, all of which occurred in countries that the US was very unfriendly towards! The article nominated here looks at incidents in Castro's Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua, and Allende's Chile; none of which were client states, and two of which were strongly opposed to the US. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an expert, but merely a reader. And for me (as a reader) the both pages look exactly the same. Now, what am I actually thinking? I think that both pages are just a bunch of nonsense propaganda by Chomsky and others and should be merged to Anti-Americanism. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you wrote that, because it is a clear statement of where you're coming from, even if it has no policy basis whatsoever, and is a case of just not liking it. If you persist in saying that a topic covered by numerous well-known historians is just propaganda, there is nothing more to be said here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda theories can be a notable subject. That's why we have pages like Anti-Americanism or Blood Libel. However, they must be properly presented as propaganda subjects. In particular, statements like the US organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror should not appear as the truth. Once again, my argument for deletion/merging here is mostly WP:POV fork (please see above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is not from this article but another, and therefore is not a valid deletion rationale for this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject and clearly distinct from the similarly-named articles. Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also Original research Chilean coup irrespective of the magnitude of the USA's role comes under Covert United States foreign regime change actions and not under Terrorism.Supporting a coup or regime change is not terrorism per WP:TERRORIST
Contras are called rebels in almost all sources including BBC,[CNN]] and not terrorists they were accused of Human rights violations as where Sandinistas when they fought from 1979 to 1989 and it is covered under CIA activities in Nicaragua further they the Contras were disbanded under a Central American plan and later Violeta Chamorro won the elections in 1990 and this issue was resolved.This was US support to a rebellion not TerrorismContras were not a terrorist movement.
Cuban exiles were not terrorists .Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles had been CIA backing but none of the sources confirm that all there actions were done under orders from CIA.

In 1976, Cubana flight 455 was blown up in mid-air, killing all 78 people on board. Carriles was arrested for masterminding the operation, and later acquitted. It is only suggested by a declassified CIA source he was involved and that the CIA had prior knowledge and this is disputed by other sources. Praguegirl (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC) IT IS CLEAR WP:POVFORK prior knowledge about a COUP is being called state terrorism and support to rebels which are politically resolved is also being called terrorism.[Contras]] were never banned internationally or neither are any Cuban exile group. Praguegirl (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93b have ever really read WP:TERRORIST ? Praguegirl (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praguegirl, I can't speak for Vanamonde93, but I have read WP:TERRORIST (have you?) and there is nothing that says "Supporting a coup or regime change is not terrorism" as you flatly claimed above was "per WP:TERRORIST." It's most certainly possible to support a coup or regime change via terrorism. If you look at my example below, Iraq supported the People's Mujahedin of Iran (dubbed a terrorist group) and the goal of this group is exactly that - overthrowing the Iranian government. And what about Pakistan's support of the Taliban's rise to power (not via democracy) in Afghanistan? I really don't know what you're talking about. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, IMO some of the info on the other article should be moved to this article, and that's causing some of the confusion. The U.S. never had true colonies; therefore, terrorism the U.S. sponsored in these places would be state-sponsored terrorism and should go in that article. Obviously, whether or not something meets the definition of terrorism is usually subjective. (Does Cuba sponsor terrorism? Is the KKK a terrorist group? Is Hamas? What about PETA? Was dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in WWII an act of terrorism or war? Let's not even go into those discussions.) Back to this AfD. State terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism are simply not the same act, even if the result is the same and there is crossover, just like killing someone yourself and hiring someone to kill that person on your behalf are different acts (and thus are different articles). Here is a specific example, using Iraq:
- State terrorism: using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands in Kurdistan in the 1980s
- State-sponsored terrorism: supporting the PKK in Turkey, a separatist organisation/terrorist group at war with the Turkish government; supporting People's Mujahedin of Iran (also dubbed a terrorist group by the US and others), an organization setup to overthrow the government and responsible for multiple assassinations of Iranian leaders and deaths of civilians

That is how I see it. Not every country is going to have both of these articles, and conceivably there could be crossover, but ideally care should be made to make sure the same info is not on both articles because of the likelihood of confusion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Praguegirl:@Joseph2302:@Vanamonde93:@Wikimandia:@My very best wishes:@Dimadick: I updated the article, you should give it a second check. The groups and individuals are designated as terrorist and carried out acts of terrorism and all are related to the United States. This is stated in the article and in his sources. Rupert loup (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. It seems more and more likely that Praguegirl is a sock/meatpuppet, given that they are quoting obscure guidelines, but have not made a single edit to Wikipedia aside from nominating this article for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems significantly different and well-sourced now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject AS PER [WP:TERRORIST]]. PLEASE Contras are not terrorist and should be called REBELS and Chilean coup leaders are NOT TERRORIST .Saying United States and state-sponsored terrorism MEANS ALL OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS WHICH IS WRONG AND VIOLATES wp:npov.Praguegirl (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) United States support to non-state terrorists (needs to be changed to REBELS]] has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa.Praguegirl (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is notable enough, sources are easy to find. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but continue to clarify the distinction between the topics as per valid concerns above. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete The name itself is a clear case of extreme POV pushing and should lead to the deletion of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- John Pack Lambert, can you explain why the title is POV pushing if numerous reliable sources use the term? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)--Antigng (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort railway station, New Jersey[edit]

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

A possible hoax, this article has been tagged for notability since 2008. I was unable to find any evidence of this railway station's existence even after extensive searches in both google books and newspapers.com. The closest I could find was a mention on the Whippany Railway Museum website that a station may have existed on Beaufort Avenue Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as no notability whatsoever. It's not a hoax (reference here), but unless Jimmy Hoffa is buried there, will never meet GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a hoax.[47] Was a real station and even though the station closed in the early 20th Century, there still is easily-found coverage online.[48] Given it hasn't existed in over 75 years, there is probably more not published online.--Oakshade (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does appear to have existed and all railway stations are kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Like any pre 1960s related articles leniency is usually given as sources are next to none impossible to find on them and this is no different - I'd imagine there were newspaper stories on it so will have to go with Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Gosvig Olesen[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable academic. Sources are simply a link to his profile on university website, and a link to his book on publisher's website. The book is published by an academic press but I can't find much evidence of it being widely read/noticed.

Note: he has one citation in google scholar that has been cited a number of times, but while I don't read his Danish, I don't think it's his work. It appears to be his translation of Foucault's History of Sexuality, Vol 1 Fyddlestix (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar returns about 380 results for him, the translation of Foucault, with by the way an introduction by Olesen (i.e. not just a translation but scholarship) among them, has been cited 363 times, and another translation of Foucault gets 59 citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has however been granted a page in Den Store Danske (Great Danes, roughly), which suggests he's pretty famous in Denmark. He is reviewed in Politiken, a major newspaper. He is interviewed on various websites and has given talk on philosophy on d2r (a serious Danish radio channel) among other radio appearances. An academic article of his has been published in French. There seems to be much more. I'd have thought this more than enough to clear the WP:GNG.Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ACADEMIC. I don't know how to calculate the H index but it looks significant, and he's in every single library index. I linked to his article on the Danish Wiki (made 2007) - it appears this was written off that one and so had all the "ibid" citation that I think used to be allowed, and it doesn't appear they added any recent stuff. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Here is his Google Scholar profile, which shows a very high H-index. His name is sometimes hyphenated as Soren-Peter, so that may have complicated the search for sources. Seems to also be a member of a national academy, the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Never mind. Wrong guy it seems. Almost the same name, same university, different field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Chiswick Chap, and H-index doesnt work quite well for humanities. Quote from Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences. Also, in sciences most new original research is published in journals and conference proceedings whereas in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." Christian75 (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ISIL#Propaganda and social media. MBisanz ^talk 01:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khilafah.is[edit]

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

We wouldn't publish a page on an official ISIL website so I don't know why we have a page on a short lived amateur website that sounds like it was constructed or just knocked together by an individual who may have had little direct connection to the group. Wikipedia is not a directory even for defunct contents. Greg Kaye 14:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The shutting down of this website seemed to receive some coverage in New Zealand and Iceland. Not sure I understand the noms assertion that "We wouldn't publish a page on an official ISIL website". If it was notable, why wouldn't we? NickCT (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about ISIL under "Propaganda and social media" section. Like NickCT I don't agree with the nominator's rationale, but the website doesn't meet the WP:GNG for its own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hockey#Other_forms_of_hockey. Consensus here that a separate article is not warranted, but am defaulting to redirect as 2 of the 3 editors who argue against keeping suggest a merge or redirect. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knee hockey[edit]

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

Non-notable version of hockey; perhaps a merge with Hockey would be best, though I could not find any reliable sources to establish notability. The ones I located were brief mentions of the subject. Tinton5 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is actually a thing and apparently widely played, by all the mentions of it and specific equipment made for it [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I'm a Canadian, and I've never heard of it before. Since it's so obscure that the media don't even mention it here, I doubt it deserves a spot in Hockey#Other forms of hockey. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Hockey#Other_forms_of_hockey. I looked at all of the citations listed by Мандичка. One had Knee Hockey in the title, but didn't mention it at all in the body. Others were advertisements, first-party (i.e. the National Knee Hockey League official site), or otherwise just not reliable sources sufficient to establish notability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reece McNaughten[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only sources are bandcamp & bands' own websites. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails at WP:MUSIC and certainly at WP:ARTIST and does not satisfy WP:GNG. This is basically a cv not an encyclopedia article. freshacconci talk to me 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above CoronaryKea (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)--Antigng (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aichi Kinro Kaikan[edit]

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

Dubious notability of a community centre/library that no longer even exists. One entry in a directory of libraries would not appear to constitute a level of in-depth coverage sufficient to demonstrate that this passes the basic notability guidelines at WP:GNG. DAJF (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DAJF (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I just helped assert notability by presenting a few of the notable performers. Lets not forget just because something no longer exists doesn't make it not notable Evangp (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've translated some of the text from the Japanese Wikipedia page. If you look at the Japanese Wikipedia page, you can see that there are several Japanese-language newspaper articles about this building, suggesting notability. If this article is saved, I'll try to translate the rest of the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Cambodia[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, not backed up by sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 12:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:N. Source searches are not providing coverage in reliable sources to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing conspiracy[edit]

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

According to the first edit summary, this article was created as WP:POINTy response to vast right-wing conspiracy (which is a specific phrase unlike this). Pretty clear the article fails to deliver because there are no sources for this broad use of "left-wing conspiracy" and the only sourced chapters is OR websites and blogs. Pudeo ' 09:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/TNT - fails WP:FRINGE; appears to be set up to defame Democracy Alliance, only sources are blogs. "Vast right-wing conspiracy" seems to have specific notability as a unique phrase thanks to the "vast." —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article was clearly created to make a point, cited sources don't really demonstrate the need for an article on this (ie, the notability or widespread use of the phrase). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wanted to add that I see potential for an article to exist with a WP:WORLDVIEW perspective so I also added WP:TNT. The claims of "Left-wing conspiracy" UK Israel and "right-wing conspiracy" UK French (conspiration d’extrême droite) are used around the world. An encyclopedic article about both terms has potential. Someone who is not me would have to see if there's enough coverage of it directly to meet GNG. Also, the phrase "Vast left-wing conspiracy" is used frequently now, usually in opinion pieces. I can see that article existing if there was a way for it to be neutral coverage of the term, and not just baseless accusations by bloggers about the Clintons and MSNBC and the Stonecutters or whoever. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it meets notability. TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Poorly-sourced POV nonsense. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as the article vast right-wing conspiracy has merit, perhaps this has merit as well. While I agree with the nominators reasoning of WP:POINTy, deletion is not a substitution for clean up. The question before us lies in whether or not the subject of the article is notable. Now one can argue that it is notable, but badly, written and say WP:TNT; IMHO that is not the case here as the article is of stub-quality and can be easily remedied, and written neutrally if it is notable.

The concept is written about in several context in several books:

John K. Wilson (2001). How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People: A Tactical Manual for Pragmatic Progressives. NYU Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-8147-9363-3.
Bruce Elliott Johansen (2007). Silenced!: Academic Freedom, Scientific Inquiry, and the First Amendment Under Siege in America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-275-99686-4.
Gregg Lee Carter (1 January 2002). Guns in American Society: A-L. ABC-CLIO. p. 322. ISBN 978-1-57607-268-4.

The concept is written about by the Washington Free Beacon: Scher, Brent (10 September 2014). "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Explained in One Chart". Free Beacon.. :As for a world view, the subject has been written about in France in the context of anti-masonry: Jasper Ridley (2011). The Freemasons: A History of the World's Most Powerful Secret Society. Skyhorse Publishing Inc. p. 279. ISBN 978-1-61145-010-1.

To be honest I have no interest in working on the article. However, based on how we're suppose to judge AfDs, it appears that based on reliable sources I must place my opinion as ~~Weak Keep~~.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this AfD has been the primary subject of a book by Byron York: Byron York (January 2006). The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of the Democrats' Desperate Fight to Reclaim Power. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-1-4000-8239-1.. Also Sidney Blumenthal touched upon both the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and its opposite concept: Sidney Blumenthal (20 May 2003). The Clinton Wars. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 665. ISBN 978-0-374-70629-6., quoting Time. Given the plethora of sources I have provided, upon further thought I am changing my opinion to Strong Keep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that connect the late 19th French Masons who defended Dreyfus with modern U.S. Democrats. And are you saying that people who today talk about the left-wing conspiracy are the same as the right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists who framed Dreyfus? TFD (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term which is the subject of this AfD has been used with different context in different periods of history. Just as the term "Right-wing conspiracy" has been used with different context in different periods of history. Whether we disagree with the subject, or not, does not impact whether the term is notable or not. Is TFD of the opinion that the topic is not notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a term, it is an adjective modifying a noun. Google "miller conspiracy" and you will find there are conspiracy theories about the unrelated deaths of the unrelated Edith Starr Miller and Glenn Miller. That does not mean we should create an article called "Miller conspiracy." TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is besides the point, this AfD is not whether or not "miller conspiracy" is notable or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At best WP:TNT. Some POV, some OR, and a quote from an unreliable blog. Nothing worth saving here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not a substitution for improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uphill Castle F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - very low-level amateur team. The general consensus for base club notability is that they must have played in a national league / cup competition, which I do not believe this club has. Fenix down (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Meet's WP:GNG with lots of coverage over the years. [56], [57], [58] Nfitz (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean lots of coverage in the same local newspaper, that essentially covers Bristol and the surrounding area? Can you explain please how that satisfies the notion of "significant coverage", particularly when the second of your sources is simply a routine match report the type of which appears in the local press all over the country and the third article is not even about the football club but a cricket club of the same name. You might also wish to discuss how aligned your comments are to WP:CLUB. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - third link was clearly the wrong one, oops, and fixed now! routine applies to events, not organisations. I wouldn't claim that the matches mentioned are notable ... however the team draws frequent, substantive, in-depth coverage. You are correct however that it doesn't meet WP:CLUB as while it does received significant coverage in many articles, that they are in the same publication, so I will withdraw my Keep. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Number 5 7 14:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has always played below the cutoff point for notability, and doesn't seem to have been the subject of coverage other than standard local newspaper reporting of the level that even kids' teams get (at least in my area.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Gaffney[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage from multiple sources in different countries in different years. [59], [[60]], [61]. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Points on the sources you have provided:

1 - Don't seem to be able to access this, but from the link, it indicates he won a player of the month award in a non-fully professional league. This isn't even a player of the year award, so not sure the extent to which this confers notability.
2 - This is comment from the player's manager on his recent transfer. Aside from the fact that the source of the comments is a primary source being directly associated with the player and the club he plays for (and therefore hardly likely to be objective in his comments about him) this is also nothing more than the usual transfer press conference platitudes every player gets on signing for a new club.
3 - This does contain some comments from the player himself which could be used to suport GNG in the presence of a number of other interviews / articles, but this article itself is not exclusively about the player but hangs his comments around a wider discussion of Irish League players moving to England and the then forthcoming match between Cambridge and Man U.

I don't believe this constitutes significant coverage per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Chronicles of Prydain#Characters. Davewild (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kaw (character)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FICTION minor non notable character Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Chronicles of Prydain#Characters. Character does not seem notable, but it is mentioined in the main article's character list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Chronicles of Prydain#Characters as doesn't meet GNG but the character does have its own little piece in the redirect article, Guess some of it can be merged if needed. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know-net consortium[edit]

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

Article about a consortium for a research project about "knowledge management", what succeeded to that consortium and the theory they invented. There is tons of consortiums creating theories in universities, I don't see why that one would be notable. Even if said thoery is notable (which I doubt), it doesn't mean than the consortium who created it is Maximini1010 (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator ----Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Isom[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball manager. Guidelines have evolved since previous afds and most of his career as a minor league player/manager has been in the independent leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete didn't find much of anything that would demonstrate notability. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say he passes GNG. This is an in-depth piece on him, while this and this, though they are articles announcing his signing as manager and would generally be considered routine, go into pretty good detail and are more than just blurbs. There is also this and this. Alex (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I'm satisfied that the notability of him has been established. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck opinion by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that Alex found are all articles announcing his hiring at various teams... if those are acceptable than every modern minor league manager would be able to have an article as they all have sources like that. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The sources provided do not satisfy GNG. Wizardman 03:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lerwick Power Station. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lerwick Energy Recovery Plant and District Heating[edit]

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

Non-notable utility; does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGSIG. Info can conceivably go on Lerwick Power Station article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The energy recovery plant, and the district heating scheme are nothing to do whatsoever with the Lerwick power stations, so there is no reason to put the information there. The DH is notabnle because it a rare, in the UK example of a district heating scheme being added to an existing town.

Also unique, the energy recovery plant was built specifically to heat the DH - can you show any other scheme in the UK where this is done?

Engineman, can you please sign your posts? You enter four tildes: ~~~~ Thank you. As for your claims of notability above... first, I think that info is dubious to establish enough notability for its own article. Not every factoid about first or thing built for a difference purpose makes something inherently notable enough for its own article. You could mention that bit of trivia in the article about Lerwick. Second, not only have you not included any reliable sources to support your claims of notability.... none of these claims of notability are even mentioned in the article. You created an article with five brief sentences and no sources, did not include any of the information that you think makes it notable, and this was three months ago; you have not gone back to improve the article since so it seems the article is to your satisfaction. You've been on Wikipedia so long that I'm really mystified; as you also created the Three legged chair or table article in all seriousness, I don't know how I can be of assistance except to politely suggest you should review Wikipedia:Tutorial thoroughly and consider using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to get help in creating articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1383 Limburgia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the 34 bodies in the Texas Minor Planet Project [62] which analyzed their orbits carefully "to map irregularities of the fundamental system of equatorial coordinates" [63]. Additionally it is part of two photometric studies [64] [65] and is used as an example in a paper about orbit determination [66]. I think that's enough attention to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I have to AGF on David Eppstein's sources, but I would say that level of coverage would be enough to meet our notability guidelines, and certainly more than the typical minor planets that have recently been redirected. Rlendog (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1886 Lowell[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. All I could find was a study of potential asteroid flyby missions that included its name as one line in a table [67]. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1892 Lucienne[edit]

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

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

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

Redirect. Part of an unselective 100-object lightcurve study [68] and name-dropped very briefly in an article theorizing that some meteorites have their origin in fragments from near-resonant asteroids [69]. I don't think that's enough in-depth and specific attention to this body to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although Wikicology provided some sources mentioning the subject, there is a consensus that those mentions are not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asadulla pasha[edit]

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

This article looks heavy promotional and though some notability exists, no independent sources can support the claim. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with your assessment and it's good you contacted Fasiullah - it appears his native name ("اسد اللہ پاشا") is not spelled correctly as it brings 0 results. It seems he should have notability by the references, but I can't find enough sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Before I check in, some changes have been made to the profile to remove "promotional" content and additional sources were added. As I find myself still naive to wiki editing, surely need your help in making the profile reasonably useful for Wikipedians/general users. Please consider improving it, instead of simply deletingg. User:Fasiullah 14:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly not notable in a golfing sense. Should not be added to WP:GOLF. See WP:NGOLF Nigej (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BASIC. I found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to mention few. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article describes the subject as a social worker and prominent lawyer, making claims that look not true. For example, both references, provided for the claim of settling the tax case of a titular Nizam of Hyderabad, do not mention the subject. This reference [70] does not mention the lawyer at all, while this reference [71] mentions lawyer by name P. Anwarulla Pasha. Hence, I do have a strong suspect, that asserting some notability in the golfing area, all other information in the article does not have any basis, hence being strongly promotional for the subject Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Polling is not a substitute for discussion and we are not conducting an election here. Secondly, none of the sources you provided above is relevant and they are not part of the ones I provided above. Lastly, editors are not allowed to vote "delete" or "keep" twice in an AfD. Please familiarize yourself with basic policies and guidelines before you comment or engage in an argument at AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 08:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually a bad copy/paste, since I wanted just to comment and to provide a relevant information to support my nomination for deletion. I replaced "delete" word to "comment" one. And again, back to the subject itself. All references, you've mentioned do not show any notability in any area, other then golf, while article clams another. Regards. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added some more relevant citations to address your and other wiki editors' claims. Hope it helps. Thanks User:Fasiullah 12:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused now since it's clear that being captain of a golf club and winning a few unheard-of amateur (probably handicap) tournaments does not qualify for any sort of golfing notability, otherwise we'd be awash with such people. So, as I said above, if he's to be notable it must be in some other area. Nigej (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Wikicology. With all of the following references here: 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 the article subject meets the notability requirement and achieves WP:N. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm even more confused now since references 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 only refer to him as captain of a golf club and, as noted above, does not confer anything like enough notability. 2 simply refers to him as an educationalist and in 5 he's attending a "bash". Honestly, to warrant a "keep" we need a lot lot more than that. Does every person who gets their name in the newspapers 8 times warrant a Wikipedia entry? Nigej (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG tells us that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". GNG does not recommend a specific topic under which a subject of an articles should be covered. Subject of an article is notable, if it has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources and you cannot deny the fact that about 16 sources (to mention few) provide above by WordSeventeen and myself are unreliable. You cannot expect us to bring hundreds or thousand of sources to WP:AfD simply because we want to establish the notability of a subject and you shouldn't the article to read like "this article is notable because...." Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your "16 sources" seem to be really 8 since the second 8 are simply a repeat of the first 8 given and 1 of which is attending a "bash". Whatever next. I still can't see the significant coverage you refer to. He's clearly involved in a number of number of worthy causes, I'm not doubting that. The question is, does that add up to enough. Nigej (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To me, the sources only point to insignificant mentions or brief quotations in the context of a non-notable role within amateur golf. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comment directly above is spot on. This is so poor and clearly skitters from topic to topic to try desperately to eke out some kind of notability. Don't look at Secunderabad Club to try to find out what kind of stature a presidency of that organization would confer, either. Brianhe (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find this last comment unclear. One does find the Secunderabad Club described as representing "the elite" [72] and retaining "its exclusivity" [73]. Whether that means the golfing elite or the social elite or some other elite is irrelevant. James500 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence that he's notable. My background is WP:GOLF and from that perspective he's nowhere close. Clearly involved in a lot of good causes but nothing specific to warrant an article here. Does the sum of the little bits of notability add up to enough? No. Nigej (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Media references are short and give no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some additional citations and more information are added to make it verifiable. Learned members of Wiki are to decide, but I seek their help in improving it. Thanks User:Fasiullah 05:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Language School[edit]

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

No indication of the school meeting notability, contains no reliable sources to allow verification. While schools are often considered inherently notable, this is a tiny private language school in Tokyo, and therefore should not be afforded that consideration. Creator of the page asked for more time to work on the article on April 7, and has not touched it since then. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the original PROD, no demonstration of notability has been provided in the form of in-depth third-party coverage, so this is presumably just another unremarkable small private language school. --DAJF (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder; I could find no evidence it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more or less as spam for just another run-of-th-mill high street (or back street) language school. Totally fails GNG and ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lis Anna[edit]

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

This page concerns an unknown short filmmaker who won a number of awards at small and obscure film and literary competitions. This page does not validate the subject matter's notability, but serves as a list of awards she has won at non-competitive events. The external links attempts to serve as a substitute for references, which it fails to do, as all of them fall under at least one category of being: non-notable, unreliable or first-party.

This article was created in 2008, which makes me wonder how it has gone unnoticed this long. However, provided that its author has only made one contribution and the page reads like an advertisement, I would assume it was made by either the subject matter or a friend. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that comes close to being a reliable source establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Ball[edit]

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

Not notable variant of netball. Apparently limited to one court in Singapore. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this sport is notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgerfilms[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with a handful of refs regarding a single event/YouTube video. Article is largely promotional in tone. --Non-Dropframe _talk 04:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With respect to the nominator, neither assessment is correct. First, this is not a single event: this is two events, within the same month. As yet, I can find no evidence that this has ever occurred before. Meantime, the "handful of refs" includes ESPN, MLB.com, and Sports Illustrated. Second, for the article to be promotional, it would have to be designed to send page viewers offsite for someone's financial gain; this article is matter-of-fact in its presentation of a non-profit (as near as I can tell) YouTube channel and the man behind it—and why, suddenly, he is now notable. That said, I would not be averse to a page move to, say, Bobby Crosby (Dodgerfilms) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though it is technically "two" events, it is a similar event and within a very short period of time. Subjects must pass Wikipedia's specific guidelines for notability. That something possibly never occurred before is not one of them. It does not satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. WP:PROMOTION does not have to be specific to financial gain; it can be to promote a person, belief, movement etc. (although many YouTubers financially benefit from increased views). Moving it to "Bobby Crosby" would not make a difference as it would not pass minimum requirements for biographies. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia, your reasoning is backward; it would be akin to arguing that two lightning strikes would be less notable if two otherwise completely unrelated storms, coming in from completely different directions—say, Phoenix and San Diego

—found your baseball glove in the same spot while you were recording it. A ridiculous analogy, perhaps, but its rarity and, therefore, its notability are compounded, not diluted, by the fact that "it is a similar event and within a very short period of time." That's why ESPN, MLB, Sports Illustrated, et al., found it worthy—and why Wikipedia does, too. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with Notability Guidelines. That the media considers something worthy to write about is not the equivalent of satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for GNG - "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia." (WP:EVENTCRIT) Any way you look at it, this does not pass the GNG. Dodgerfilms does not pass as an organization WP:ORG, the guy who runs it does not pass WP:BLP, and the two events do not pass WP:EVENT. While it might be interesting (to some) that someone caught two Dodger homeruns while recording it within a short period of time, interesting is only an opinion. We need significant coverage of the event in reliable sources to back up this claim of notability. There is no indication this will have any lasting significance (WP:LASTING) or receive persistent coverage (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). As far as I can see, only one source (MLB) even mentioned the second catch. That's strange - if the second event was some kind of stunning shock that defied the odds, wouldn't there be more coverage of the second event? The coverage should be multiplied for something like that ... ie Man gets hit by lightning (news story in a few sources); same man gets hit by lightning twice in one month (WAY more news stories). Even if you combine all the coverage of both events, it is nowhere near in-depth or significant coverage (WP:DEPTH). This is so weak it is almost a speedy delete. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read GNG repeatedly over the last several months; I still believe this passes. LASTING uses phrases like "often considered to be notable" and "likely to be notable", while capping with "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." The article passes INDEPTH. CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is iffy: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event ... are likely not suitable ... However ... That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." In short, yes, this pushes the envelope of what is or is not encyclopedic. I believe it is. That said, I'm leaning toward the page move.

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, improvements continue, specifically WRT duration (it's more than those two catches, though they were certainly the catalyst) and reach. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable event... certainly the article title is ridiculous as it is about a person not a you tube channel. He could possibly be notable for his comic book work but i havent researched him enough. In that case the article should be re-named to his real name and re-written to focus on that aspect. Spanneraol (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On first blush, you may be onto something. I'll keep working on it. (Edit: or not. I'm having a bear of a time finding anything verifiable via secondary sources ...) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose this might not qualify for BLP1E since it covers two events, but neither event is very important and this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also, while I personally didn't think this article was especially promotional, contrary to what the article creator has claimed above, an article can be promotional in ways that are not related to money. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this is one event. The only thing that makes this even remotely beyond run of the mill is that he did it twice in a month. So the combination of the two is the one event. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what makes it extraordinary. I can find no other instance of this ever having happened. Ever. Anywhere. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the fact that you can't find any other instance of this happening is because catching home run balls is not a relevant enough event that it even gets reported. This may have happened many times in the past but no one could even be bothered tracking or reporting it. Rlendog (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a possibility; however, the relative plethora of reports on this one argues against it. (Catching home run balls probably happens virtually daily. Videotaping oneself while doing so, not so much.)

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea but who cares? Really? Is there any lasting notability to the fact that this guy videotaped himself catching home run balls? Anymore so than any other novelty story that gets brief media attention and then fades away. In a year or two will anyone remember or care about this guy? The article title isnt even about the guy its named after a you tube channel... the channel itself is not the subject of any real coverage anywhere... even in the novelty articles on the guy they just go on to say.. oh by the way he has a you tube channel... so do a million other people all chronicling whatever goofy thing they do. Be serious. Spanneraol (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yea but who cares?" This same question may or may not have been asked by MLB, the Diamondback's broadcasters, the Dodgers' broadcasters, and reporters and/or editors at ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the Los Angeles Times, the Daily News, the Daily Mail (twice!), et cetera, ad nauseam; all of which decided that enough people care. I presume they were no less serious—and no less whimsical, for that matter—than I. Meantime, as noted above, my choice of article title may not have been the best. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things get mentioned in the media but that doesnt make them notable for wikipedia, see WP:NOTNEWS. There is no indepth reporting about Bobby Crosby the person at all.. These were just novelty mentions that he did this oddball thing. I thought maybe his comic book work could be notable but it seems to be such an indy thing that I couldnt find any independent reliable sources that discuss his work in that field, and the film isnt even in production yet and doest meet notability requirements there either. I could maybe support a redirect from his name to the Blatant Comics page, but not from Dodgerfilms. Spanneraol (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, if we judge by the now-overwhelming response favoring this AfD, you are correct. Meantime: may I ask that, in the future, you be a bit more judicious with phrases like "be serious"? In my ongoing effort to improve the encyclopedia, I may occasionally push the envelope, as it were. We learn by doing—and, to that end, I was never not serious. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Videotaping oneself doing something doesn't make it notable. If the video starts getting "Gangnam Style"-like viewing figures on YouTube, that may be a different story, although even then it is more likely that the video would be notable than the person doing the videotaping. Rlendog (talk)

Absolutely correct: "Videotaping oneself doing something doesn't make it notable." What makes it notable is the coverage, from ARI broadcasters, LAD broadcasters, MLB, ESPN, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, the UK Daily Mail, and Sports Illustrated, et al. Nevertheless, the consensus clearly is against the article, so my argument appears moot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is trivia. Even if it technically can pass GNG (which I am not convinced it does, since this is essentially BLP1E), this would be a case that I would treat as an exception to the guideline. We have deleted countless minor leaguers who are far more notable than this. And while he may eventually become notable for the film, that film does not meet WP:NFILM at this time, so there is no argument there for including him. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rlendog (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per rationales of Wikimandia, Spanneraol and Rlendog. Non-notable baseball fan -- WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTRIVIA all have some impact here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

APOGEE (festival)[edit]

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

No actual evidence of notability. WP is not a directory of cultural events at a college. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are self-published, press releases, or event listings. I found three semi-maybe-independent sources (here, here, and here) that mention APOGEE, but they are far from adequate to use as the base for a Wikipedia page. Fails WP:GNG. And, even if it didn't fail GNG, the information here would probably be better suited on the institution's main article in a condensed form. Gargleafg (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White House Complex[edit]

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

This page was originally prodded in 2007 for being "Unnecessary - all info already in White House",[74] but that was rejected. In the eight years since, this article remains with no citations, with almost all of its content basically repeating what is on White House#The White House since the Kennedy restoration and other sections of the White House article. Thus, there is no apparent rationale under all the rules of WP:GNG for maintaining a separate stand-alone article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason this meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per sources provided here as well as the improvements made to the article, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'Anson (musician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and not citing nearly enough reliable source coverage to claim WP:GNG instead. Essentially, this article just serves to demonstrate that he exists, and fails to make a credible case as to why he would belong in an encyclopedia as of yet. Delete, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually makes it over a notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage cited in the article plus a review in the Herald ([75]), BBC Radio coverage ([76]), and this from the Daily Record are sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the lack of reliable sources argument as demonstrated by the previous comment. Also, in addition to the existence, the article tells the history (press covered) and remarkable collaborations. I am adding the new revealed sources to the text. --Tanonero (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would appear to pass WP:NMUSIC as it cites inclusion of two or more independently notable musicians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.187.24 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Ashitomi[edit]

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

Political activist, his main campaign means that he has been mentioned in articles in newspapers internationally. However, I think this is far more about the protest than him directly, and I don't think it would get beyond WP:1E. I can't see that he meets WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I'm aware that part of the problem is the language barrier. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources simply mention this person in passing, and do not appear to provide a level of in-depth coverage sufficient to demonstrate general notability. --DAJF (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in sources listed. ~Kvng (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I originally held off closing in the hope more of a discussion would happen but 17 hours later and still the same, seems consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2015[edit]

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

With so much unknowns, just a crystal boll and advertising. The Banner talk 11:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet GNG with news coverage, and with contestants are being added as they qualify. Even though it's not till November it has enough sources for information. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pageant is an upcoming event, related articles of the same pageant have already met the notability guidelines --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No date, no place, no venue, no sources for the event itself (all sources are for the contestants). I tend to call that a crystal boll. The Banner talk 10:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pageant is notable, and the sources are very reliable. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT- needs working on, not deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing prevents somebody from turning this into a redirect if they feel that's the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westward School, Walton[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school, and not a plausible redirect to Walton-on-Thames. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Does not seem notable. Mhhossein (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Walton-on-Thames per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 21:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I should've paid more attention! - Had the School remained at Westward School, Walton I would've gone with redirect but there's more than 1 Westward School in the world so thus makes a useless redirect, No evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

draft / userspace There's simply nothing here, so my inclination would be to delete it, whether or not it's notable. As it's an independent, there is a slightly greater likelihood of it being able to in some way demonstrate notability per WP:GNG by the usual manner, rather than just being a simple run-of-the-mill local primary. However there's no sign of that as yet. It is however a new article by a new editor and so I'm happy to give them time to work on it.

Redirection seems pointless, as there's little to link it with the suggested target and a redirect to a large topic with no coverage of the redirect subject isn't much use to readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article has been moved to Westward School, of which a cursory google search shows that there are too many to have a primary topic. I don't think that the old title is much more useful either as a redirect, especially since Walton-on-Thames doesn't have an #Education section. ansh 666 04:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All of the participants agree that the school shouldn't have a standalone article, however the course of action (there were suggestions to redirect, merge, userfy, and delete) is unclear. Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The school is already listed in List of schools in Surrey#Independent schools. FOr the reason given by User:Andy Dingley, I doubt whether this would be a sensible redirect for the current title of the article, but it might be for the earlier one. PWilkinson (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted G4 as recreation of salted article, and new version of previous article with no known improvements Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Miss Grand International[edit]

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

Recreation of the earlier removed Miss Grand International 2015. Non-notable year version built on related or unsuitable sources. The Banner talk 11:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia articles aren't intended for establishing notability, as in this case, but should be about events etc that already are notable. Thomas.W ^talk 12:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G4, Salt as recreated 3 times (including the earlier title) and {{uw-salt}} the page creator. --TL22 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandaue Gay Pageant[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable pageant. The article does not cite any references, and the only sources I can find about the event are insignificant. Apparently, the event is part of Mandaue's yearly fiesta, but either way this doesn't appear to have independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a Wikipedia article to exist that article needs to note multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject of the article. This concept fails WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The pageant is too local in scope even in the Philippines, and wouldn't probably meet notability guidelines for Philippine-related articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources and these are news articles cited and a government website. This is in tangent with WP:GNG. There is evidence that Ms Gay Mandaue pioneered in trans pageantry and local as it may be in Cebu it is widely known in Pageant circles in the Region. Regionalism is at play here to cite that a local pageant shouldn't be promoted for education and recognition. Dmitri cortes (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources I could find were about the Mandaue fiesta as a whole rather than just the pageant. Even those that were, at first glance, about the pageant, were actually about the pageant as part of the fiesta. This could mean that Mandaue's fiesta is a notable event which warrants its own article, and I wouldn't have prejudice against this article being merged to such an article, if it existed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's effectively news, not encyclopedia writing. "This thing happened" is news. "This feature, frequently referred to by its name but without context, is explicable by the following contexts" is encyclopedia writing. "A ship sank" is news. "The S.S. Edmund Fitzgerald was a ship that sank on Lake Superior and was immortalized in a top-40 hit record by Gordon Lightfoot" is encyclopedic. When this feature of a festival is long standing, large, and, most of all, discussed enough that people need the discussions explained, it will need an article. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due lack of notability even within the Fiesta itself. The news articles that I found just give brief mentions about it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Access intelligence[edit]

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

I'm nominating Access intelligence for deletion due to lack of notability. This article does have an {advert} note on it already, but after checking the provided links and doing further searches, I doubt that it can be brought to an acceptable level of referencing. References all seem to be either primary sources (quarterly reports, press releases), advertisments, or incidental listings (stock exchange records). - Article author notified.

~~Delete~~ as non-notable (as nominator).-- Elmidae (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote, your nomination is your recommended course of action. Feel free to comment, though. Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CORP, although publicly-traded on the London Stock Exchange, the only sourcing available is on the company's deals and filings (normal for any publicly-traded company), not on the actual company itself. Esquivalience ^t 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall consensus is to Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1940 Whipple[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. In fact maybe 50 of these discussions have already reached consensus and been closed (look at the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science). It is not premature to continue nominating more of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: Boleyn has about 255 AfDs for low numbered asteroids. All he cares about is CAT:NN and AfD is not cleanup. Deleting too many borderline asteroids is harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1663 van den Bos. If we can't redirect without an AfD, and can't mass-AfD, then these individual AfDs are absolutely necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: it's difficult to investigate this one because 1940 Whipple appears in a different context. I just found one photometry study[77] and a few mentions of the asteroid in the context of a discussion about Whipple. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. One lightcurve study [78] and brief mentions in some other papers, but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:So an object is more notable if a lazy bastard only studies 2 objects, but if someone studies 20 such objects in a single paper, then none of them are notable? Wikipedia is a strange place. -- Kheider (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree that this asteroid is not independently notable. Neutrality^talk 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1371 Resi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Carrasco published a couple of studies of its orbit in the early 1950s but I can't find much about it that's more recent, and I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Not sure why the relists considering the Keep !voter is simply unhappy about the nom and the !vote's not even related to this AFD... Obvious outcome is redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1653 Yakhontovia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect per WP:DWMP: One photometric study with a paragraph of text found. Not much else. Praemonitus (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1438 Wendeline[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect per WP:DWMP: All I could find were position reports and photometric opportunities; nothing substantial. Praemonitus (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was There is No Consensus to delete the article. -- GB fan 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Placid (film series)[edit]

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

This article is redundant, unnecessary, and messy, and contains no new and little contents which are merely copies of contents from another article. TurokSwe (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's a template directly below with the films in thus making this entire article redundant ?....., So I'm not really understanding why this "article" was ever created.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Clearly notable. I created this stub to provide an overview/umbrella of the series. It can always be improved on. The fact that there is a navbox is irrelevant, in actual fact there should be an article to justify the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, this could merit a rename to Lake Placid franchise, as the series spans several films and some games as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCF, the correct disambiguator would be "(franchise)", however, a couple of promotional tie in web games do not satisfy the definition of a franchise. There is already a move discussion in place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real issue here is that it doesn't please YOU. TurokSwe (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue is that you don't understand what qualifies as a franchise by our definition, and you have no respect for our guidelines or MOS and you have made a rather WP:POINTY AFD. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What other article does this duplicate? Of course it will have some overlap with the component parts of the franchise, but deleting it on those grounds would be like deleting Car because we have articles on every individual part of the car. bd2412 T 14:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Delete - nothing notable about this series. Furthermore this article is somewhat pointless; for example, the table listing all the characters as they appear in the series reveals that only two appeared in more than one film (and those two only appeared in two). So basically each movie gets a whole new cast and there is no crossover. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid deletion arguement presented by the nominator. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The main problem here is a lack of engagement. Gargleafg has provides multiple sources which he claims establish notability; the particular sources he has raised have not been meaningfully discussed beyond "the article doesn't pass WP:NCORP/WP:GNG", making it difficult to establish any consensus regarding the validity/reliability/usefulness of these sources. I suggest that if this article is re-nominated in a few months, voters pay particular attention to the specific sources provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AvoDerm[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Article reads like an ad. No references, other than two external links to the company's own website. A google search comes up with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP.― Padenton|✉ 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Technically, Padenton, WP:NCORP doesn't apply to AvoDerm, because it's not a company. Breeder's Choice Pet Foods is the company that offers the AvoDerm line of pet food, and Central Garden & Pet Co. is that company's parent. That's neither here nor there. A basic Google News search revealed a 2012 recall of AvoDerm pet food (1 2 3). It's also received a few passing (or slightly more than passing) mentions in other articles from prominent and reliable sources (1 2). Some reviews are pretty thorough (1 2). And, from the first deletion attempt this article went through, we can see that AvoDerm is mentioned in a number of book sources ([79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]). I think these are all enough to pass WP:GNG. The article in its current form is certainly bad. I think it just needs to be properly-sourced and rewritten. Gargleafg (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRODUCT is part of WP:NCORP. NCORP isn't exclusive to companies, but also covers their products, which should generally be included in the company's article. ― Padenton|✉ 22:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Per argument made above. Also, after reading this, I'm convinced it passes notability guidelines.~~ SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG: All the sources I can find are passing mentions, which don't contribute to notability because they are not "significant coverage". The coverage on AvoDerm's recalls (the only significant coverage) are on the actual recalls itself, not AvoDerm. Esquivalience ^t 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. My dog ate my encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Oh, my, this has been running so long, I forgot I started it! I didn't intend to double-dip. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources provided by Gargleafg appear to help the subject pass WP:GNG. Books source in particular are convincing NCORP may or may not apply. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Adams[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable television personality. Quis separabit? 12:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG. 2008 profile and this one, along with the usual articles mentioning things related to her reporting, are sufficient for notability —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep 3 articles focused on her, plus "the usual articles mentioning things related to her reporting" to quote Wikimandis. It's enough to push her past GNG. (I do wonder whether developing standards for journalists might be useful) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this "notable" is relying on publications. I wonder what happens if a television company owns a newspaper? I wonder what happens when a small-splash local show gets "fluff" pieces done on its presenters in all of its affiliated media? Does that person become "notable," simply because the employer is high capital? In other words, is notability entirely subservient to capitalist manipulation so that nations with low protections on cross-platform ownership will have all of their air personalities "notable" by definition? Look at what is being said about this person by these "independent" publications. This is not the place to vote to change the "it's published, and that's all we know" blindspot in notability, but this article offers nothing beyond a celebrity mash note (complete with switch to 2nd person narrative). Therefore, delete at present, simply because a closer look at the support makes one wonder. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, I don't believe Adams was an employee of a television network owned by the same owner as the newspaper giving her coverage, at the time. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My 31st Demerit[edit]

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

Only a single feature article in Daily star. I failed to find any other source for this band in Google search. Fails WP:GNG Arr4 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉ 19:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2012 article with one source. They played one event, and nothing comes up in searches. AlbinoFerret 03:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it would be nice to find out their name in Bengali to see if sufficient coverage is available. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bar the source in the article I can't find anything at all, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 02:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sure they're earnest, and they probably rock as hard as any, but it is the nature of bands to pass beyond the memory of man, like krill, and Wikipedia is neither a validation nor memorial of the widespread democratization of music production. Without more external validation, no. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont Arms[edit]

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

Not an obviously notable pub. I declined a CSD A7 as there are a few news pieces in the Bolton News about change of ownership, and the "community pub" concept suggested there could be enough to write about a piece of minor local history. Having dug around for sources, it seems this is one of many, many estate pubs all over Britain, though I have to give it credit for still being open and serving customers, as many are not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable pub and my searches found nothing aside from listings and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The present article is non-encyclopedic. It lacks a lede, provides no context for notability or any significance of the place even within its region. That a perfect researcher and a gifted writer might discover something to say is possible, but such a person wouldn't lodge the article at this name in the first place. (When people debate the real vs. the perfect article, they need to take into account also the namespace of the page and whether its useful to researchers.) An article that ends in a question mark is begging the question, you might say. This one is answering itself: pure localism. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Onaolapo[edit]

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

WP:NN person. Article features a minimal two sentences holding onto one source and has not been edited in over 9 months. This shows there's nothing of note to add and thus Miss Onalapo does not meet Wikipedia standards. Rusted AutoParts 00:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Onaolapo was a gold medalist in 2012 at the Summer Paralympics. Her death even drew comment from Nigeria's President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan who described "the death of the Nigerian Paralympian gold medallist, Mrs. Joy Onaolapo as a big loss to the nation." found at this source here: [85]. Whether an article has or has not been edited in nine months is not criteria for deletion of an article. I expanded the article with some new references including President Jonathan's statements, and the words of one of her coaches. The article subject crosses the threshold of notability.WP:N Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORTS/WP:NOLYMPICS. Paralympic medalists are presumed notable. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS as a medalist at the Paralympic Games. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. An article being short is what stub notices are for, not a reason for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1704 Wachmann[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect. I only found one study of this object [86]; I think we need more for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has a light-curve image. -- Kheider (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP: it only has one photometry study, and that provides little useful detail. Most of the article was about the observation techniques and the fact that this object had previously had its period determined. Non-notable per WP criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1777 Gehrels[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]

Keep: Two light curve studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I only see one study [87] repeated several times on Google scholar in part because it overlaps in pages with a different unrelated paper. Anyway, I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a slightly clearer consensus. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Afterlife Empire[edit]

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

Unsourced and non-notable PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ case of WP:TOOSOON. I only found two articles on GamePolitics.com about it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know about incubate. Sounds perfect to me. — Strongjam (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this does get deleted I'd like to request the admin relocate it to my userspace so that I can compile any future references that might appear for it. If the game moves from Greenlit to actual release, then more coverage may result and allow me to build the page to a size where, if anyone seems appropriate, they could see it as adequate justification to re-create at that future time. Ranze (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
incubate right now there is nothing notable about the subject itself, merely the controversy surrounding the players involved and the controversy is covered in the articles about thosee players. It seems possible that there will be coverage of the game itself after its release in which case the controversy about its funding etc would be a notable feature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a good idea actually. I forgot all about WP:AI aka WP:LIMBO. I think I ran across it a while ago but it's hard to remember the terms. Plus the process is a bit hard to get familiar with. I am agreeable to an administrator moving to an incubator... I think I might have even done this before for some other page. Can't recall which. This may be preferable to leaving it on userspace. Ranze (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incubate~~ per TRPoD. Seems like a perfect use of Limbo. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do'h! Since, as Ryk72 points out, incubator has been closed for months, move to Draft instead. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the WP:Article Incubator is now closed down. The suggestion there is to consider WP:DRAFTS instead. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Arguably, this is an attempt at getting in first to write the article. That's the charitable view. The cynical view, is this is back to the old idea that having a Wikipedia article is an ersatz form of advertising, with the Wikipedia page providing boosterism for competition in the marketplace. I'm sure the capitalist economics of ghost cartels will catch on (ummm), but only after it has would there be a need for a description. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but support drafting or merging better. GamePolitics is a reliable source, and this article [88] is completely fair to describe the game. But between that and a second GP article that lacks much additional detail (once the game passed Greenlight), there's not much else yet. It could be merged to The Fine Young Cannibals page for now, or put to draft, once we see what type of sources that could come out. However, deletion is not appropriate since this a searchable term and does have potential for an articles. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GamePolitics is a reliable source? Was there even consensus of it being one? GamerPro64 05:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of one, though it is managed by the Entertainment Consumers Association with editorial oversight. Regardless, the only potential RSes are coming from that site, and that's just at the cusp. If the game is going to be coming to Steam (since it's been greenlighted), and it's got weak ties to the GG situation, its likely bound to get more notice, hence drafting or merging may be better until that happens. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete but thinks that moving this to the users page or making a draft would be a good idea. --☣Anar chyte☣ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TFYC and put some info about the fact that this game exists in there.Bosstopher (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fine Young Capitalists as a likely search term for now. It will probably get reviews and coverage after it's released. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game may have been tengentially involved in part in a dispute, but it need not be relegated to a footnote. If anything, that only increases its notariety. It hardly needs further advertizing given its reception on steam greenlight, and I do not think that it is a valid criticism to suggest as much. Keep the page and let it grow. Even StarCraft's page started small. Xenomancer (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But when Starcraft's article was created, it had been out for years and had been the best selling game of 1998. Afterlife Empire has yet to reach that stature. Bosstopher (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BC logging road etiquette[edit]

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

Non notable info to warrant its own page. Perhaps a merge to Driving etiquette would suffice. Tinton5 (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—we're not a textbook. A few of the specialized concepts might warrant mention in driving etiquette, but only as examples of variations. Imzadi 1979 → 03:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might be useful on Wikibooks or Wikivoyage, but not here. --Rs chen 7754 05:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chop down this article. Oh my. Where to begin? Are the rules of road etiquette different in, say, Oregon? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Stuntman Riky wants to teach you how to live with confidence". granthamjournal.co.uk.

[2] "Riky Ash stunt man co-ordinates stunts for Dr Who Live - Nottingham Post". Nottingham Post.

[3] "Getting To Know: Stuntman Riky Ash". Business Matters.

[4] "VIDEO: Riky is kung-fu fighting, record-breaking stuntman". granthamjournal.co.uk.

[5] Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (2010). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 397–414.

[6] Feldmann, Andreas E.; Maiju Perälä (July 2004). "Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America". Latin American Politics and Society. 46 (2): 101–132. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2004.tb00277.x.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]